Hi Bruno, > Hi Steve, > > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 10:49 -0400, Steve Huston wrote: > > These look like profiling info from the client side, is > that right? It > > shows a lot of waiting, which indicates the delays are > probably in the > > broker side. Could you please profile the broker while running your > > timing test? > > Yes, I can do the profiling in broker, but notice that I use > the same broker all the time. Do you think it still helps? > The broker is running on Fedora 13.
Ok, I forgot about this... No, don't bother profiling the broker. But it would be useful to profile the client again, but run a few thousand messages to make sure that the message-processing path stands out from the noise. Thanks, -Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bruno Matos [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:36 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:49 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote: > > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > You're welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a > Windows client. > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857 > > > > > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 > > > microseconds/packet > > > > > > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, > > > and the Linux > > > > > > > > libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm using 0.6. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution > > > supported by > > > > > > > > the project? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from > > > > > > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's > > > 0.6 - probably > > > > > > > not significantly different from what you tested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little > > > > > > less, but not enough. > > > > > > > > > > Right... > > > > > > > > > > > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this, > > > > > > please let me > > > > > > > know. I'm also available to help get that information. > > > > > > I have two output files from Sleepy, with asynchronous and > > > synchronous session. Sleepy can be found in > > > www.codersnotes.com/sleepy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What > > > > > > do I need to get useful profiling information? > > > > > > > > > > Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something > > > > > like Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread > > > measuring tools > > > > > (I forget the name). > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a simple program now that sends and receives > > > messages. It starts > > > > counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop > > > counting when > > > > message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux > and 39118 > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000 > > > packets. I will > > > > try Very Sleepy free profiling tool. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Bruno Matos > > > > > > > > > Regards, > Bruno > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
