On Jan 5, 2012 11:45 AM, "Rob Godfrey" <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4 January 2012 22:56, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In terms of BDB vs. Derby performance, I wouldn't be surprised if for a > > single producer / single consumer case the performance is very similar. As > > Robbie highlights, really the performance here is all to do with how often > > you can synchronously write to disk. If ach store is performing a single > > write to disk for each transactional commit, then the performance should be > > very smilar. > > > > > So, I actually spent a bit of time today testing this out :-) > > The use case that my users most often encounter with persistent messaging > is where each message sent/received from the broker is sent in its own > transaction (using JMS), and for the testing I have chosen a 1Kb message > size. >
> The Derby store does indeed provide slightly superior performance if you > have eight or less active connections, but the BDB store scales better > above that number. For completeness I have also tested the C++ broker with > its async store, and another popular AMQP broker implementation > > You can see the results here: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_GB&hl=en_GB&key=0AqizD3Y_JixzdFhKZFctbzRWbWtMbE9CcnJzWjZMQVE&output=html# > > Note that other test scenarios (in particular not using transactions) would > likely give wildly different comparative performance, and message sizes may > also affect the results. Obviously people should always test on their own > hardware and with test cases reflecting their actual usage pattern. > > Cheers, > Rob
