On 04/09/2010 01:39 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 8 Apr 2010, at 13:16, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 04/07/2010 03:36 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:30, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:02, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/30/2010 05:38 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
Hi all,
I've
On 8 Apr 2010, at 13:16, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 04/07/2010 03:36 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:30, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:02, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/30/2010 05:38 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently run some tests to try and see how muc
On 04/07/2010 03:36 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:30, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:02, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/30/2010 05:38 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently run some tests to try and see how much overhead
clustering
brings. In short - I saw
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:30, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:02, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/30/2010 05:38 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently run some tests to try and see how much overhead
clustering
brings. In short - I saw roughly a 50% reduction in message
throughpu
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:02, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/30/2010 05:38 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently run some tests to try and see how much overhead
clustering
brings. In short - I saw roughly a 50% reduction in message
throughput
when clients ran against a 2 node cluster vs a
On 03/30/2010 05:38 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently run some tests to try and see how much overhead clustering
brings. In short - I saw roughly a 50% reduction in message throughput
when clients ran against a 2 node cluster vs a standalone broker. I'd
definitely expect some reduct
Hi all,
I've recently run some tests to try and see how much overhead
clustering brings. In short - I saw roughly a 50% reduction in message
throughput when clients ran against a 2 node cluster vs a standalone
broker. I'd definitely expect some reduction, but perhaps not as much
as that.
