> However, the messaging platform deals with transferring pub/sub messages
that can vary from 1KB to 1MB in size – that is decidedly **not** in the
microsecond realm, even if it were on an Infiniband network communicating
via ibverbs

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this statement.
Contemporary solutions (eg SolarFlare) are capable of exactly that. What's
more - you can see sub-microsecond latency for small payloads (in synthetic
benchmarks).
Single digit microsecond latency is actually expected these days for
disseminating (market) data over a single hop in local network.


On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, 20:10 Mark Dawson, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Peter,
>
>
>
> Yes, I do work in the HFT, and we do use low-latency infrastructure for
> exchange-facing infrastructure. However, the messaging platform deals with
> transferring pub/sub messages that can vary from 1KB to 1MB in size – that
> is decidedly **not** in the microsecond realm, even if it were on an
> Infiniband network communicating via ibverbs.
>
>
>
> My interest is in response time measurements of various Message Bus
> products, so we’re talking millisecond scale for which tools like JMeter
> are more than enough. My issue is with the error-prone reporting with their
> Response Time Percentile Graph that I’ve noticed so far.
>
>
>
> I think Gil’s suggestion gets me closer to what I thought I wanted. But
> the fact that I can’t make use of exponentially distributed request
> intervals, like what the new Precise Throughput Timer permits, makes me
> think we’ll have to craft our own (a fraught exercise all its own).
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Peter Booth <[email protected]>
> *Sent: *Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:21 PM
> *To: *mechanical-sympathy <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: JMeter and HdrHistogram Integration
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
>
> I don't know anything about your use-case but the fact that you're posting
> on mechanical sympathy
>
> suggests that latency is important to you. If you are talking about low
> latency messaging, such as that
>
> found n electronic trading then you should forget JMeter. Depending upon
> the age of your infrastructure,
>
> the use of lower latency NICs like Solarflare, Mellanox, low latency
> switches, TCP offload
>
> you could be interested in latency measurements in the low numbers of
> microseconds.
>
>
>
> This testing is harder than it sounds when you consider the impact
> messages of varying sizes, realistic
>
>  topologies, slow consumers, different reliability constraints, ...
>
> It's easy to do this badly ( I have many times), and hard to do well.
>
>
>
> I don't know your business context. If it's electronic trading and you are
> looking at
>
> low latency messaging products *(like 60East's AMPS, 29West lbm (now
> Informatica), Tibco's FTL,*
>
> *IBM's low latency messaging (now Cofinity), Aeron, ZeroMQ, Solace) *then
> this is a solved
>
> problem. All the above come with benchmarking tools, but the best designed
> messaging benchmarks
>
> that I have seen are those done by STAC Labs.
>
>
>
> The best independent benchmarking that I have seen is that performed by
> STAC Labs.
>
> They have benchmarked many of the products I listed. See
> https://stacresearch.com/stac-testing-tools
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Feel free to email me directly if you want to chat.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> peter_booth *at* me.com
>
>
> On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 4:18:12 PM UTC-5, Mark E. Dawson, Jr.
> wrote:
>
> So our company is evaluating a set of messaging platforms, and we're in
> the process of defining non-functional requirements. In preparation for
> evaluating performance, I was considering suggesting JMeter since it
> appears to support testing messaging platforms (with several specific
> tutorials online). However, these tutorials show the Response Time by
> Percentile graphs from the tool, and they all appear to show evidence of
> CO.
>
> Does anyone know if the latest versions include support for HdrHistogram
> either out-of-the-box or via extra configuration?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "mechanical-sympathy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mechanical-sympathy/c84555b9-5ed1-42a9-a844-fe1204cdf16a%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mechanical-sympathy/c84555b9-5ed1-42a9-a844-fe1204cdf16a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "mechanical-sympathy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mechanical-sympathy/5dfe7c18.1c69fb81.9b697.e43e%40mx.google.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mechanical-sympathy/5dfe7c18.1c69fb81.9b697.e43e%40mx.google.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"mechanical-sympathy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mechanical-sympathy/CAHNMKAqd1X3SB2Cir7oOmwkOjaZ%2Bu73gRUes-h1hcKDCTxyKVw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to