Hi Adel,

It's not clear to me from looking over the commits which might have caused the regression you have observed.

A little perspective on this question: 0.7.0 (now in RC1) is the first release that has updates specifically targeted at increasing performance. During the 0.7.0 development cycle, several significant performance issues were identified and corrected.

Any performance regression is of interest and should be mentioned. That said, the 0.7.0 release should exhibit considerably better performance than the 0.6.x releases.

-Ted

On 10/04/2016 04:39 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
Hello,


In our performance tests, we use 4 Producers (3 JMS Producers + 1 Proton-c 
Producer) which all send messages synchronously to a messaging system composed 
of 1 Dispatcher connected to 2 Qpid Java Brokers (6.0.4). Producers send 
messages to a Topic which is bound on a queue (Binding Key + JMS selector 
filter: 67% of the events sent are accepted by the queue). 3 JMS Consumers are 
also attached to consume messages. The queue and topic are set on both brokers 
and the dispatch router advertises them correctly.


Connection Schema


Producers - - - - - |                                        |--- Broker 1
(3 JMS + 1 C++)   |                                        |
                              |----- Dispatch Router---|
Consumers -  -  - |                                        |--- Broker 2
(3 JMS)

Dispatch Router has 4 connectors to each Broker.
Dispatch Router + Brokers are on the same machines. Consumers + Producer are on 
the other machine.

We have noticed a reduced overall average throughput of the producers by 3% by 
simply updating the version of the Dispatch Router from 0.6.1 to 0.6.2 (The 
release candidate).

Although the regression is tolerable but we would like to have your input on 
the above knowing that there are only 4 fixes between the above-mentioned 
releases.

Regards,
Adel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to