No, for this test, I am not using persistent messages. Would pooling
connections, instead of just sessions help out?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [developers] Performance Increase
When you use request/reply you have twice of the throughput (1 request, 1
reply). Do you use persistent messages?
--
Andreas Mueller, IIT GmbH, Bremen/Germany, http://www.iit.de
SwiftMQ - JMS Enterprise Messaging System, http://www.swiftmq.com
-----Original Message-----
From: "Matthew Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:09:42 +0200
Subject: [developers] Performance Increase
> Hola,
> I am playing with SwiftMQ, and I have set up an example that looks
> pretty much like this:
> Point-to-Point
> 10-25 QueueSessions created on Server w/ accompanying MessageListeners
> (seperate machine)
> 5 QueueRequestors per client (growable pool)
> 2 clients on different machines (not including server)
> 100 Mb Ethernet connections on a switched network
> the Message Object is not too large, just an xml document with one
> Element.
> Server: processor p3 550MHz 512 MB ram
> Clients processor p3 1GHz 512 MB ram
>
> I am only getting a throughput of around 107 per/second for a single
> client,
> and when I add the second client, the througput just about halves for
> each
> client, so still around 100 total, but around 50 for each client. I am
> watching the queue, and there are never a large amount of message in
> the
> queue. I have even cached the document, so it is just returned, and
> not
> built each time. Throughput is the same. I have sampled from
> 100-10,000
> messages per client. I do create a individual session for each
> consumer/producer, but I don't create a new connection. I am pooling
> the
> QueueRequestors, so I do not have the overhead of creating new
> Sessions, or
> Temporary Queues. Throughput is about the same. In the
> Consumer/Producer
> threads on the JMS Server, I have allocated 150 threads each. Still
> the
> same throughput. None of the machines are underpowered. So what
> gives.
> how can I get more perforamnce?
>
> Any suggestions are greatly appriciated,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
> UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
> Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------
SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
