Thanks for the explanation and the link to SEDA flow. So I assume, even the JMS flow with VM or JMS flow+ cluster + VM may not be too efficient than the SEDA in the Smix ..cluster.
Mat bsnyder 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/) 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/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Seda-Flow-and-ST-flow-tp14339781s12049p14420334.html Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
