Andy,
In a few weeks it might be worth giving the C++ broker with the async
store a run. We are still
tracking some bugs but are able to beat bdb performance by orders. If
you like I can post some
numbers later this week.
Carl.
Robert Greig wrote:
On 04/11/2007, Andy Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure. That makes sense. In fact, I'm working on a product/solution where
I'll be using messaging and databases in a transactional way and it's
imperative that the performance of messaging (with persistent messages,
durable subscribers and transactions) is faster than the database
operations. I'm in the process of performance testing a prototype of the
solution and I'll be using QPID M2 and Berkeley DB for now and will see how
the performance looks.
It will be interesting if you could share your findings with us. In
our performance testing (admittedly with a SAN) we have seen around
700 msgs/second (single commit per message).on a simple point to point
test case.
I don't have experience of HOWL but have worked with low-level transaction
code in the past (implementing an EJB container). I guess there's no reason
why I couldn't just have a go at creating an implementation of the
MessageStore interface - that would at least be a fast way to familiarise
myself with the work involved and see if it makes sense for me to contribute
towards this.
Yes definitely. The BDB store is probably a good example to follow.
RG
