In addition, I would also try playing with the thread pool size, especially if your CPU consumption is not maxed.
On Dec 19, 2007 3:33 PM, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/<http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/%7Emdw/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/ > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
