qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rupert Smith" <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Weekly plans.
Date Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:09:37 GMT
I thought I saw 'total time: 500ms' on a previous mail you sent about this,
but I guess I am mistaken.

Trouble with max throughput tests, is that at saturation who can say what
the latency will be?

On 08/11/2007, Robert Greig <robert.j.greig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2007, Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think there has been a degradation, its just that the test is
> > different. As I said, the client machine maxed out before the broker or
> > network did, so the 100k I observed was not the brokers best effort. In
> fact
> > I will try and run the test that gave you 200k+ and see if I can improve
> my
> > test case to do this too.
>
> That is interesting since previously we were not hitting the CPU limit
> even with 16 clients running.
>
> > One thing I did notice about the 200k test, is that it only ran for
> > 0.5seconds.
>
> ? The test was configurable in terms of the number of messages sent.
> We ran with various sizes (including very large numbers) but it was
> pretty consistent so I think we often just ran with 10,000 message
> batches.
>
> > If latency is around 50ms (guessing), then it would be
> > advisable to
> > run the test for at least 5 seconds (100 times latency).
>
> I hope latency is far lower than 50ms for transient messaging.
>
> > The test you are refering to is Publisher/Listener under
> > org.apache.qpid.topic?
>
> Yes.
>
> RG
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message