Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, Thanks for feedback. I will merge the changes into 7.0.1. We will be looking into performance improvements for AMQP 1.0 later this year. Though, we do not have a date exactly when we will be doing this work. The changes we had implemented are tactical. They are small enough to be ported

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Alex, The performance is way much better now and is acceptable for us. Thank you very much for your effort. Do you know why the performance is still lagging behind the C++ broker? Is it something that can be influenced by the broker settings? Thanks and regards, Tomas -- Sent from: http://

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, We are going to port the implemented changes into 7.0.x branch for inclusion into 7.0.1. Please, let us know whether the sending and receiving performances are acceptable for you. Kind Regards, Alex On 23 January 2018 at 15:59, Oleksandr Rudyy wrote: > Hi Tomas, > > Today I committed

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, Today I committed changes [1] into master improving the performance of the broker-j for the Receiver use case. The commit is made against QPID-8032. I tested the changes locally on my machine and could see the improvements in broker-j performance. Before the change the dequeue operation

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, We are currently looking into performance improvements for the Receiver. We will notify you after necessary changes are made and ready for testing. Kind Regards, Alex On 22 January 2018 at 11:20, Tomas Soltys wrote: > Hi Keith, > > I can confirm that sending is now much faster. > >

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Keith, I can confirm that sending is now much faster. *C++ broker* $ ./Broadcaster 20001 real0m0.085s user0m0.027s sys 0m0.005s *Java broker* $ ./Broadcaster 20002 real0m0.876s user0m0.037s sys 0m0.011s However receiving is still much slower. *C++ broker* $ time ./Re

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, The work for QPID-8032 is done on master. If you could repeat your test-case with Broker-J compiled for master and let us know how performance changes (improves, hopefully a lot). Once I have heard back from you I'll look to have this included in a 7.0.1 very soon. Kind regards, Keit

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas Thanks for the attachments. With your Broadcaster code, which sends persistent messages asynchronously, I do see inferior performance from Broker J than the CPP Broker. I am using proton master (fa80534) Currently for this use-case, Broker-J commits synchronously after each delivery (s

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Keith, Please find attached cpp_vs_java.gz . This archive contains: * *java* - setup of Java broker (v7.0.0) * *cpp* - setup of C++ broker (v1.36.0) * *proton-client* - C++client based on Qpid proton (v0.18.1) * *java_trace.log*

Re: Java Broker performance

Your earlier mail was clear Tomas, I didn't even know you replied to me as I don't use the Nabble interface. I just wanted to reiterate it is also important we know which client(s) and which code any comparisons are performed with otherwise the numbers simply cant be reasoned about fully. While dif

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, Can I suggest that you share the logs from both brokers for the two amq_send.sh test? Also separately, I suggest a run of amq_send.sh with a small number of message, say message-count 20, with Proton trace logging enabled (export PN_TRACE_FRM=true) on the client side. Repeat this with

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Robbie, I just realized that I placed my response to incorrect person. It supposed to be a reply to Keith's message. To your questions. The test was performed with C client based on proton 0.18.1. However, I got very similar results also with qpid-send tool which settles after each message. I

Re: Java Broker performance

Could you answer my question around confirming what client you are using for the comparison below, the C++ one or the JMS one? I'm guessing it is the C++ one. In which case, Rob's thoughts are the likely explanation for why the Java broker isnt any faster with it than you are seeing, and testing w

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Keith, I'm still getting huge differences, but I still hope it is related to how I configured my brokers. Please find attached file brokers.gz containing setup of my two brokers (cpp and java). Both I tried to setup to be as similar

Re: Java Broker performance

On 15 November 2017 at 14:13, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 10/11/17 18:11, Keith W wrote: >> >> I infer that CPP Broker must be optimistically sending the >> Disposition back to the client before the data is sync'd, so that is >> why you see better performance (but with a lesser guarantee). > > > I don'

Re: Java Broker performance

On 10/11/17 18:11, Keith W wrote: I infer that CPP Broker must be optimistically sending the Disposition back to the client before the data is sync'd, so that is why you see better performance (but with a lesser guarantee). I don't believe that is the case. The c++ broker only sends back the d

Re: Java Broker performance

On 10 November 2017 at 15:39, Vavricka wrote: > Hi, > > hardware: > * Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4570 CPU @ 3.20GHz > * 16 GB RAM > * HDD ST500DM002-1BD142 > > timings: > Currently Java Broker 6.1.1 seems to behave as version 7.0.0 RC. 10 - 30 > messages per second. Interesting is when I increase messag

Re: Java Broker performance

It is ok for us to release 7.0.0 and implement this issue in 7.0.1. Vast majority of our applications need this functionality. Tomas Keith Wall wrote > The test is sending persistent messages so the broker is obliged to > write them to disk. After the arrival of each message transfer, the > Br

Re: Java Broker performance

The test is sending persistent messages so the broker is obliged to write them to disk. After the arrival of each message transfer, the Broker-J awaits the sync'd to disk (after the write) before sending the Disposition performative back to the client. The Qpid JMS Client is awaiting the Disposit

Re: Java Broker performance

On 10 November 2017 at 16:39, Vavricka wrote: > Hi, > > hardware: > * Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4570 CPU @ 3.20GHz > * 16 GB RAM > * HDD ST500DM002-1BD142 > > timings: > Currently Java Broker 6.1.1 seems to behave as version 7.0.0 RC. 10 - 30 > messages per second. Interesting is when I increase messa

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi, hardware: * Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4570 CPU @ 3.20GHz * 16 GB RAM * HDD ST500DM002-1BD142 timings: Currently Java Broker 6.1.1 seems to behave as version 7.0.0 RC. 10 - 30 messages per second. Interesting is when I increase message size to 10kB. Messages per second are same but throughput is in

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, I'm testing with out of the box configuration. I have tried your configuration and still can't reproduce a slow down. I don't know your ACL rules, but I added some. The result was the same. I'm curious to hear the answers to the questions I posed earlier. Hopefully that will give us a

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, Nor can I reproduce any discernible difference in performance between 6.1.1 and the 7.0.0 RC with your Java code. I have not tried the C++ yet. Can you share with us: * details of the hardware (including the storage) you are using for the test. * the timings you seeing for your tests

Re: Java Broker performance

Yes, we running it on same hardware and versions. Couldn't be there issue with our configuration? Can you spot there some misconfiguration in config files below? Will be helpful if you send us your broker configuration? config.json { "id" : "cfa9a57a-6f98-4f17-b81d-22fb5a032473", "name" : "

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, on the producing side I cannot reproduce this difference on my laptop (MacBook Pro, running OS X), and I'm unaware of any changes that were made to the broker that would cause such a significant slowdown (I haven't looked at consuming yet). I presume you are running these tests on the s

Re: Java Broker performance

Thanks Tomas, we'll look into this -- Rob On 10 November 2017 at 09:59, Vavricka wrote: > C++ client code below > > #include > #include > > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > > class Broadcaster : public proton::messagi

Re: Java Broker performance

C++ client code below #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include class Broadcaster : public proton::messaging_handler { private: std::string _account; std::string _password; std::string _host;

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi, when consumer is not attached sending of messages is slow too. We were running performance tests for Java Broker 6.1.1 before 6 months and there were no issues (throughput for 1K messages was around 10MB/s). rgodfrey wrote > Hi Tomas, > > are you saying that there is a significant degrada

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, That does sound surprising. These performance tests[1] are run, with BDB and using the latest Qpid JMS Client, against both the Broker-J 7.0.0 and 6.1.4 code lines each day, which is consistently showing v7.0.0 is faster for the five use-cases exercised by the tests (see perftests/etc/

Re: Java Broker performance

Hi Tomas, are you saying that there is a significant degradation in performance between 7.0.0 and prior versions for this scenario, or do you see the same performance in 6.1.x? In terms of consuming - is the performance slow if you are consuming from a queue with 1000 messages already in it, or i

Java Broker performance

Hi, we are testing release candidate of Java Broker 7.0.0. I checkout tag 7.0.0, build broker with tests without any problem. We have sender and receiver based on proton 0.18.1. Both sender and receiver are started at same time. Sender is sending 1000 persistent messages to exchange and receive

Re: Qpid Java Broker performance tests using AMQP 1.0

hand and used "NoOp" Queue creator. The final command: -- View this message in context: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-performance-tests-using-AMQP-1-0-tp7645180p7645383.html Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at

Qpid Java Broker performance tests using AMQP 1.0

st of thing one needs to do in order to execute performance tests with 1.0 client? Thanks, Michal -- View this message in context: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-performance-tests-using-AMQP-1-0-tp7645180.html Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabbl

Re: Qpid Java Broker performance lower than expected

The parameters we had used with the original QpidBench program is as follows: -c 1 -i 1000 -s 1024 -m both --timestamp false --message-id false --message-cache true --persistent true --jms true -- View this message in context: http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker

Re: Qpid Java Broker performance lower than expected

this message in context: http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-performance-lower-than-expected-tp6925405p6938973.html Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Apache Qpid -

Re: Qpid Java Broker performance lower than expected

s comparisons between different messaging >> providers. >> > >> > http://bhavin.directi.com/rabbitmq-vs-apache-activemq-vs-apache-qpid/ >> > >> > Do you think, the figures from my tests are correct, or what are

Re: Qpid Java Broker performance lower than expected

; http://bhavin.directi.com/rabbitmq-vs-apache-activemq-vs-apache-qpid/ > > > > Do you think, the figures from my tests are correct, or what are the > > expected performance results, or are there any tweaks which need to be > done > > for performance gains. I am running

RE: Qpid Java Broker performance lower than expected

correct, or what are the > expected performance results, or are there any tweaks which need to be done > for performance gains. I am running out of trunk. > > Thanks & Regards > Vinay > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabb

Re: Qpid Java Broker performance lower than expected

gt; expected performance results, or are there any tweaks which need to be done > for performance gains. I am running out of trunk. > > Thanks & Regards > Vinay > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-perf

Qpid Java Broker performance lower than expected

://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-performance-lower-than-expected-tp6925405p6925405.html Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementatio