Glad to hear you are looking at JBM 2.0.
A couple of thoughts:
1) I'd strongly recommend against running all tests on the same box. You'll
probably find the results won't give you a real picture of performance since
you really need a network in play (minimum 1GB network).
2) For JBM 1.4 - are
Is this Linux? Are you using libaio? What disk you have in your config?
If you are using linux/libaio, when you add more clients you should scale even
higher. I mean.
Our target for BETA is to maximize your disk... say.. if your disk can do up to
20K messages a second on the disk, you would be
anonymous wrote : Our target for BETA is to maximize your disk... say.. if your
disk can do up to 20K messages a second on the disk, you would be able to add
20 more producers and you would still have 800/1K messages per second on each
producer.
Of course I meant... 20 producers at the small t
"timfox" wrote :
|
| 1) I'd strongly recommend against running all tests on the same box. You'll
probably find the results won't give you a real picture of performance since
you really need a network in play (minimum 1GB network).
|
|
We are designing each node in this role so it is
anonymous wrote : Yup, out of the box JBM 1.4 config. HSQL is fine with us
because of the architecture I mentioned above, as long as HSQL is configured to
persist to disk for durable storage across restarts (which it is by default it
appears).
JBM 2.0.0 GA (and probably the Beta )will have a J
anonymous wrote : Yup, out of the box JBM 1.4 config. HSQL is fine with us
because of the architecture I mentioned above, as long as HSQL is configured to
persist to disk for durable storage across restarts (which it is by default it
appears).
I'm not sure if it's memory or disk, but on HSQL
