On 8 Apr 2010, at 13:16, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 04/07/2010 03:36 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:30, Andrew Wright wrote:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:02, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/30/2010 05:38 PM, Andrew Wright wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently run some tests to try and see how much overhead
clustering
brings. In short - I saw roughly a 50% reduction in message
throughput
when clients ran against a 2 node cluster vs a standalone broker.
I get about a 25% reduction running against a 4 node cluster.
Try --worker-threads=4.
<snip>
Just a quick follow-up - setting worker-threads=4 noticeably
improved throughput on a single queue in both the standalone and
clustered scenarios. It reduced total throughput somewhat when
loading 8 queues simultaneously (which you'd expect). The ratio of
standalone:clustered throughput remained at about 2:1. Will let
know if we get any further interesting results.
I know this is odd to ask, but what hardware are you running on
brand. As machines that have SMI's are known to reduce throughput in
clustered configurations. My employer has worked with some
manufactures to provide bios's for certain models for reduced SMIs
to resolve this issue.
Carl.
Interesting. This particular test was on HP DL380 G5s. We tend to have
a mix of G5 and G6s kicking around. I see there is some literature on
the redhat site re: tuning these models for realtime. Will talk it
over with our unix team.
Cheers,
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
