I thought I saw 'total time: 500ms' on a previous mail you sent about this, but I guess I am mistaken.
Trouble with max throughput tests, is that at saturation who can say what the latency will be? On 08/11/2007, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 08/11/2007, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think there has been a degradation, its just that the test is > > different. As I said, the client machine maxed out before the broker or > > network did, so the 100k I observed was not the brokers best effort. In > fact > > I will try and run the test that gave you 200k+ and see if I can improve > my > > test case to do this too. > > That is interesting since previously we were not hitting the CPU limit > even with 16 clients running. > > > One thing I did notice about the 200k test, is that it only ran for > > 0.5seconds. > > ? The test was configurable in terms of the number of messages sent. > We ran with various sizes (including very large numbers) but it was > pretty consistent so I think we often just ran with 10,000 message > batches. > > > If latency is around 50ms (guessing), then it would be > > advisable to > > run the test for at least 5 seconds (100 times latency). > > I hope latency is far lower than 50ms for transient messaging. > > > The test you are refering to is Publisher/Listener under > > org.apache.qpid.topic? > > Yes. > > RG >
