The reason I said that was that it takes a *lot* longer to run some(/all) of the system tests when using the DerbyStore, but doing some very noddy tests today with a single consumer and producer showed there wasnt any great difference between them. Both were noticably slower than historically, so it is something we will be looking into improving. One particular system test I previously noticed a large difference in uses multiple consumers and producers though, and so that could actually be where the difference lies because the BDB store is implemented somewhat differently to the Derby one and so possibly has an artificial edge in that regard.
Robbie On 26 October 2011 03:14, Danushka Menikkumbura <danushka.menikkumb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Robbie, > > I did not notice that the BDB store was faster than the Derby store when I > checked some time back. > > Thanks, > Danushka > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robbie Gemmell > <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Vinay, >> >> I havent done any performance benchmarking of the Derby store to know >> what a representative number would actually be, but I will try to take >> a look at some point. I havent actually used QpidBench, so can I ask >> if there were any specific command(s) you ran so I can try the same >> scenarios? >> >> We havent paid much attention to performance of the Java broker for a >> while unfortunately because we have been working on various other >> issues such agetting memory usage under control and sorting out >> correctness issues etc since adding a newer protocol version and doing >> some significant refactorings and reimplementations, but as we reach >> the light at the end of the tunnel on those it is something which >> should move further up the priority list. >> >> It is worth nothing that there is also a BDB persistent store for the >> Java broker that you might want to look at, as I would expect it to be >> faster. It has recently been moved into the main repo, but is still an >> optional module which you need to explicitly ask for to be built >> (because BDB itself uses the Sleepycat Licence, which invokes >> restrictions upon distribution that mean it is not Apache Licence >> compatible). You can build the store module and include it (but not >> BDB itself) in the broker binary release bundle by using the following >> build command: >> >> ant build release-bin -Dmodules.opt=bdbstore -Ddownload-bdb=true >> >> You will find that downloads the bdb je jar into >> qpid/java/lib/bdbstore, and then creates a broker binary release in >> qpid/java/broker/release which includes the additional store module. >> You can make the BDB je jar available to the broker by creating a >> lib\opt subdir and copying the je jar into it, where it will get >> picked up automatically assuming you are using Java 6+. You can then >> use org.apache.qpid.server.store.berkeleydb.BDBMessageStore as the >> store class config instead of the other stores. >> >> Robbie >> >> On 24 October 2011 16:25, vipun <vinay.punno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > I'm collecting performance figures for QPID Java based broker. The >> results >> > which i got after running the QpidBench program are a little lower than >> > expected. My machine which is a quad core, 8GB RAM with Windows 7 gives a >> > message throughput of around 400 messages when both producer and consumer >> > client instances are active. >> > >> > Qpid Java broker is configured to run over Derby and messaging is in >> > persistent mode. I was expecting somewhere around 1000 atleast going by >> the >> > following blog which does comparisons between different messaging >> providers. >> > >> > http://bhavin.directi.com/rabbitmq-vs-apache-activemq-vs-apache-qpid/ >> > >> > Do you think, the figures from my tests are correct, or what are the >> > expected performance results, or are there any tweaks which need to be >> done >> > for performance gains. I am running out of trunk. >> > >> > Thanks & Regards >> > Vinay >> > >> > -- >> > View this message in context: >> http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-performance-lower-than-expected-tp6925405p6925405.html >> > Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> > Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> > Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
