You could try pulling the latest code from trunk to see what effect the TCP_NODELAY option will have on performance on your machine. The code in trunk sets TCP_NODELAY on by default.
regards Tim On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 10:52 -0700, Pravin Kundal wrote: > Hey Sir, the string you sent "WORKED"..........thanks!! > > Stomp improved the results but still away from our target. posting some > results. Message was string of around size 50 to 70 characters. All with > Non_Persistent message relibility (i.e. atmost once) > > Here are our readings: > A] > Using Openwire, Asynchronous Consumer. > 1] Multi Threading : one session, one producer per Thread: 214 > msges/sec. > 2] Multi Threading : one session, mutiple producers. concurrency > implemented in client: 122 > msges/sec. > > B] > 1) Using Stomp, Asynchronous Consumer. > > 1] Single Thread: 410 msges/sec. > 2] Multi Threading (2 Threads): one session, one producer per Thread: > 357 msges/sec. > 3] Multi Threading (5 Threads): one session, one producer per Thread: > 413 msges/sec. > 4] Multi Threading (5 Threads): one session, one producer per Thread: > 387 msges/sec. > > 2) Using Stomp, Synchronous Consumer. > > 1] Single Thread: 367 msges/sec. > > So from the above results maximum is 413 what we got. Our target is upto 600 > to 650 msges/sec. > > Also both producer and consumer are CMS ActiveMQ. > > Our Java team tested using Java clients (producer and consumer) with > ActiveMQ broker with 10 threads running they are getting around 700 > msges/sec. Is it because java supports internal multithreading or something > else. Or any other reason???? > > I really appreciate for you quick and working out responses :) Thanks. > > > > > Mittler, Nathan wrote: > > > > Sorry ... The url should be "tcp://localhost:61613?wireFormat=stomp" > > > > See http://activemq.apache.org/cms/configuring.html > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Pravin Kundal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:34 PM > >> To: users@activemq.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: Implementation of multithreading model on CMS ActiveMQ > >> > >> > >> I am trying to test it out using stomp. > >> But it is giving me exceptions > >> On Consumer Client: ActiveMQConnectionFactory - unknown > >> Transport Factory. > >> > >> I tried with following brokerURI's > >> > >> std::string brokerURI = "stomp://localhost:61613" > >> "?wireFormat=stomp" > >> "&transport.useAsyncSend=true"; > >> > >> std::string brokerURI = "stomp://localhost:61613" > >> > >> std::string brokerURI = "stomp://localhost:61616" > >> > >> can you please help us out? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> Mittler, Nathan wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> In the case I will need to implement the concurrency > >> control over the > >> >> session, so that only one thread can use the session, as > >> sessions are > >> >> implemented for serial use? Rght? > >> > > >> > Yes, you should add your own concurrency control for the session. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> I tried the first case in which i implemented the multithreading, > >> >> each thread running its own session and each session having one > >> >> producer. But the results were not even close to our requriment > >> >> (result in msges/sec). > >> >> > >> > > >> > Were you using openwire or stomp as the protocol? We have > >> seen cases > >> > where small messages with openwire cause extra delay due to > >> the naggle > >> > algorithm and that message footprints are smaller than their stomp > >> > counterpart. If you're using openwire, I suggest you > >> switch over to > >> > stomp and see if you have different results. If that does > >> the trick, > >> > our next release will allow a user-specified TCP-NODELAY > >> socket option > >> > that should fix the problem for openwire (for small messages). > >> > > >> >> Do you think the other case can give us the better results > >> (i.e. "The > >> >> ActiveMQ-CPP implementation, however, will allow you to share a > >> >> session across threads.") > >> >> > >> > > >> > Without understanding your particular usage of the client, I would > >> > guess that a different usage wouldn't help much. Just to > >> make sure, > >> > however, you could slightly modify our example application > >> > > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/activemq-cpp/trunk/src/examp > >> > le s/main.cpp and see if you can get it to meet your requirements. > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Nate > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> http://www.nabble.com/Implementation-of-multithreading-model-o > >> n-CMS-ActiveMQ-tf3790047s2354.html#a10722340 > >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > > > > >
