Yeah. Broker, consumer and producer are all in separate machine. All these machines has 6-cpus.
The result for my throughput is total, not count for single consumer that is why I feel strange of the results. I also do some tests by using cluster of brokers, typically 3 broker machines by using store and forward model, these problem insists. Sorry, I don't know "top and sar" mean and can you explain in details how you solve the problem of CPU bounding? Thanks so much, Zao On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Sean Bastille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Was this all running on a single 6-cpu host? > > I found your initial results surprising given that I have done similar > testing just a few weeks ago that struggled to make a third of your > throughput, but my tests involved two 2-cpu hosts, so this likely accounts > for the difference. > > Also to clarify, when you say 10 consumers processed 5820/s, are you > referring to the total throughput as being 5820, or each consumer handling > 5820, for a total of 58k/s? > > Assuming the former, I believe you are experiencing the same limitations I > was running into, which is the consumer being CPU bound. You should be > able > to investigate further using top or sar. > > My peak throughput configuration involved 3 producers and 2 consumers, > although this was with each process running its own embedded broker. > > Sean > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM, zaoliu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > An issue when testing performance s when I increase the number of > > consumers > > for testing non-persistent messages, the throughput get down very fast. > I > > can't find the reason for it. Each consumer thread is a separate > > connection > > to the broker. > > Below is my result for testing (all using one producer to send messages > in > > a > > separate JVM): > > 1 consumer: 12683/s > > 2 consumers: 11289/s > > 3 consumers: 9956/s > > 4 consumers: 8638/s > > 10 consumers: 5820/s > > > > To my understanding, increasing the consumer numbers should improve the > > throughput of brokers, but the result is opposite to my expectation. > > > > Zao > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://www.nabble.com/Confusing-results-for-my-performance-testing-tp15622219s2354p15622219.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >
