Hi Tomas, Can I suggest that you share the logs from both brokers for the two amq_send.sh test? Also separately, I suggest a run of amq_send.sh with a small number of message, say message-count 20, with Proton trace logging enabled (export PN_TRACE_FRM=true) on the client side. Repeat this with both Brokers and share.
With regard to Broker-J performance, we know that BDB will outperform Derby for many use-cases. The BDB plugin has received much more tuning over the years than Derby. I know you have already said you tested with both earlier in the thread, but I wanted to point it out. cheers Keith On 24 November 2017 at 10:58, Tomas Soltys <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robbie, > > I just realized that I placed my response to incorrect person. It supposed > to be a reply to Keith's message. > > To your questions. The test was performed with C client based on proton > 0.18.1. However, I got very similar results also with qpid-send tool which > settles after each message. > > I've also tried sending using 0-10 and 1.0 protocol versions but no > significant differences. > > I also executed test client based on Qpid JMS 0.23.0 with very similar > results. In all cases C++ broker was able to settle and send acknowledgment > way much faster than java broker. > > Is there something in the settings that can be tweaked to improve IO > performance? > > Regards, > Tomas > > > > -- > Sent from: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Apache-Qpid-users-f2158936.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
