Thanks, Claus. I have also tried Kafka in my app for comparison purposes, and it seems to be a little bit more performant.
I saw something called Starlight for JMS that does JMS over Pulsar, and gets about a million messages per second. I'm considering writing a camel component for that. Im surprised, though, that I'm not getting anywhere near a million messages per second (or even a million messages in ten seconds) with either Pulsar or Kafka. With a small payload, what throughput should I be seeing? On Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 4:40 AM Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > I think camel-pulsar does an ACK per message at the end of routing. > Then the performance may become slower. > > kafka uses async commit every 5 sec in the background (by default). > > for camel-pulsar you can also use manual ack, and then find a way to batch > acks. > But maybe there is a way in pulsar to also ack like kafka via a background > task. > And maybe we can improve camel-pulsar to make this easier to do out of the > box. > > Of course if you do async acks, then you can have duplicates in case the > app crashes and is restarted, > then pulsar will resume from last known "ack" position. > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 5:04 PM Steve973 <steve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello. I have been experimenting with the Camel Pulsar component as a > more > > performant alternative to traditional JMS brokers. I have seen > performance > > comparisons that set Pulsar even above Kafka in most cases. It is > reported > > that Pulsar can handle (~3.5) millions of messages per second. In my use > > case, I am sending very simple messages, where I have a couple of > headers, > > and a payload that is a simple POJO with a string field and a map with > > between one and five entries, depending on the message. I am using > > protobuf to de/serialize the message body. I am seeing approximately one > > thousand messages per second. I can only assume that it is "user error" > on > > my part, but I was wondering if any of you have an example that > > demonstrates performance that is more on-par with the advertised message > > rate. If not, how can I determine what is slowing down Pulsar's > > performance in my use case? > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > @davsclaus > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 >
