I don’t have much time myself to dedicate to the benchmark now. (For the next month at least. )
If you have any issues after that Pr I would appreciate if you could provide some feedback here please. I would make some time or ask someone else here who could do jt. Thank you. On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:50 PM Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 19, 2022, at 11:04 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > The confirmation window size is definitely a change that needs to be > done. > > > > Is your benchmark a single producer / consumer ? > > The benchmark program can be configured with many consumers and producers > of many topics. > > You can see some of the extreme tests that some are doing from the > workloads here: > https://github.com/openmessaging/benchmark/tree/master/workloads > > Thanks, > Dave > > > > > > > There is a lot of things we do to allow scale of multiple clients. > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:08 PM Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> There is a project at the Linux Foundation called > >> https://openmessaging.cloud - they include Artemis drivers in their > >> Benchmark program - for both Artemis here: > >> https://github.com/openmessaging/benchmark/tree/master/driver-artemis > and > >> Artemis JMS here: > >> https://github.com/openmessaging/benchmark/tree/master/driver-jms > >> > >> We had someone doing benchmarks using the Artemis JMS driver and on a > >> cross country test with about 60 ms of internet latency the results are > not > >> good. > >> > >> We wanted to get feedback from the ActiveMQ project about a PR we are > >> submitting: https://github.com/openmessaging/benchmark/pull/343 > >> > >> Are there additional changes that should be made to optimize Artemis? > >> > >> Also if there are any JMS configurations that could improve throughput > >> that can be made when running Artemis JMS any pointers would be helpful. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Dave > >> > >> > >> -- > > Clebert Suconic > > -- Clebert Suconic
