Your earlier mail was clear Tomas, I didn't even know you replied to me as I don't use the Nabble interface. I just wanted to reiterate it is also important we know which client(s) and which code any comparisons are performed with otherwise the numbers simply cant be reasoned about fully. While different clients might act/perform similarly in some cases against particular servers, in others cases they can/will be very different.
The example JMS code you gave earlier is doing a synchronous send of a persistent message, so if you are running single producer synchronous sends on a hard disk that can only do say ~100syncs/sec, and getting vastly faster results in one case, then something is probably awry. In such a situation, both brokers performance should be gated by the synchronous sends and need to sync to disk before responding to the client. Keiths testing suggested that is the case, seeing similar results for both brokers in his testing. In the case of a C[++] client doing asynchronous sends then it would currently be expected for the C++ broker to be significantly faster based on the details Rob gave, as even if waiting for settlement after 100 messages its still mostly async in comparison. Your example code didnt do that however, so again seeing what you are actually doing would be needed to fully reason about it. You mention Qpid JMS 0.23.0 below, while earlier in the thread you mentioned 0.27.0 when giving example code. Did you actually change clients? Did you use the same JMS application code provided in this thread in both cases? If you did use that example JMS code, I would actually have to start questioning if the messages are really being persisted (and synced to disk before response) in both cases if you are seeing radically different numbers between them. Following Keith's suggestion would be a good idea. Robbie On 24 November 2017 at 10:58, Tomas Soltys <tomas.sol...@gmail.com> 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: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
