On Dec 14, 2007 1:23 PM, MatSM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Iam trying to understand the performance metrics for the above two flow. > Please clarify. > > The scenario for the flow is : > > 1. Different files of with a few recs totalling to xml recs- 500 is dropped > in a Queue.In our case MQ. > > 2. That is read by Smix through JMS binding - The JBI components in Smix > does - splitting of xml, validation of xml(Node level) and calls a web > service running in Geronimo to insert recs into database. > > The metrics > Appromixately 1.5 minutes for 480 recs inserted into db.. (Some exceptions > thrown, those recs not inserted into db) - Flow -SEDA > > Appromixately 8.5 minutes for 480 recs inserted into db.. (Some exceptions > thrown, those recs not inserted into db) - Flow -STRAIGHT > > > Any explanation to the above poor performance for the ST flow.
This is straightforward difference between the straight through flow and the SEDA flow. The ST flow does no buffering whatsoever so it's not as efficient and doesn't scale very well. The SEDA flow is based on the concepts in the SEDA paper (http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/seda/) so it is designed to be more efficient and scale much further. This is why the SEDA flow is the default flow. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/ Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/ Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/ Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
