On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:31 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 24/07/14 13:59, Alan Conway wrote:
Very important point I forgot to mention: are you doing a release
build?
cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
That makes a big difference. It enables optimization flags for the C++
compiler.
On 07/25/2014 03:30 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions than
someone who has trouble with their debugger (and since the default
doesn't set -g anyway that doesn't appear
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 10:30 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
...
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions than
someone who has trouble with their debugger (and since the default
doesn't set -g anyway
Exactly - I agree with Andrew.
On 7/25/14, 10:46 AM, Andrew Stitcher astitc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 10:30 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
...
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions
On 07/25/2014 03:46 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 10:30 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
...
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions than
someone who has trouble with their debugger
On 7/25/14, 12:13 PM, Alan Conway acon...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:47 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 25/07/14 15:30, Alan Conway wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:31 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 24/07/14 13:59, Alan Conway wrote:
Very important point I forgot to
Due to the lack of documentation, I had to RTFC to figure them out.
Posting this hear hoping it can help someone else out ... or be used to
start a doc on it ...
First regarding the remote_host parameter. remote_host is the QPID
broker virtual host you are connecting to. When you don't
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 12:13 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:47 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
...
My vote would be to default to the most optimised/operational-quality
I agree with this, but I strongly believe that operational-quality
includes debugging symbols.
Operational
On 25/07/14 17:27, Steve Huston wrote:
I believe that the person likely to be downloading qpid source is a
developer. It is likely a developer that does not want to become
intimately familiar with debugging Qpid - they just want it to work
without asking questions. But it is a person who may
+1 to Andrew's reasoning.
The WinSDK ships Debug and RelWithDebInfo and calls them Debug
and Release. Without the symbols field support is much harder.
-Chuck
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Stitcher astitc...@redhat.com
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014
-Original Message-
From: Fraser Adams [mailto:fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:22 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++
broker
On 25/07/14 17:27, Steve Huston wrote:
I believe that the
Hey 郑勰,
Qpid should definitely be able to achieve at least 200,000 per second,
though it'll depend on the message size and hardware obviously. Check
out the paper linked below:
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/mrg/Reference_Architecture_MRG_Messaging_Throughput.pdf
That paper has something like
- Original Message -
From: Josh Carlson josh.carl...@kaazing.com
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Cc: Fraser Adams fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:38:04 PM
Subject: Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++ broker
The only way I'd feel
13 matches
Mail list logo
