On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Michael Goulish <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > On 05/01/2014 08:55 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Michael Goulish <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> I tried firing up my messenger-based receivers, each subscribing to > 100 > > >> addresses, then 200, 300, 400, 500. The results are consistent across > > >> that range, and show that each extra address costs 115 KB. ( Looking > > >> only at resident-set size. ) > > >> > > >> So when I tried to do a total of 1,000,000 addrs on one box, I did > > >> indeed overwhelm my memory. That would come to 115 GB, which > > >> would have been more than double my physical mem. > > >> > > >> Please note I did not actually send any messages. A router was > running > > >> for these receivers to attach to, but no senders were running. > > >> > > >> Does 115 KB per subscribed addr seem fairly reasonable? > > >> > > > > > > No, that seems quite excessive. Can you trace where the memory is > actually > > > coming from? > > > > Just for comparison, a qpid::messaging process with 1000 subscriptions > > over AMQP 1.0 uses 48MB on my laptop. A similar process using AMQP 0-10 > > uses 8MB. > > > > > > Yikes. A 40 KB per subscription added cost. > That's because 1.0 is ten times as good as 0.10 . > > Just off the top of your head -- is there anything inherent > in 1.0 that would make you expect that kind of difference? > Definitely not, the overhead should be comparable. --Rafael
