Support Forums: Message List - Another day, another benchmark

HornetQ

Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:33:04 -0400

We are expecting more update of previous HornetQ.However the test is good.

ways to quit smoking

Re: Disk synching

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:12:21 -0500

Tim,...

Re: Disk synching

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:55:43 -0500

Andreas,...

Re: Disk synching

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:46:07 -0500

I've measured the disk sync performance with java.nio and direct buffers, message size 1024 and 8192 and I'm getting 64 sync/sec every time. Data is appended. That's not rocket science. HornetQ get's 190 sync/sec which is impossible. Hence, you don't...

Disk synching

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:34:39 -0500

If you're using Java NIO, speed of syncing is dependent on many things, e.g. amount of data in the OS buffers to sync, where that data is located on disk, etc. It's really not a constant....

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:46:22 -0500

You try to make me a fool, yes. ...

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:47:29 -0500

Andreas, you *do* realize you're making a fool of yourself in public, right?

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:47:02 -0500

The results were prepared and submitted by us (TU Darmstadt), not JBoss. As you can see in public available configuration files we did not need much tuning for the HornetQ results (we only adjusted one or two parameters, which were well documented)....

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:12:34 -0500

Translation: "it doesn't perform very well when benchmarked by a vendor of a competing proprietary closed-source solution on his laptop, but when subjected to the rigors of a true enterprise benchmark designed by the well-respected Spec...

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:20:58 -0500

This was a test how HornetQ performs in a 1:1 non-persistent scenario and it says just this: it doesn't perform very well but certainly enough for an open source JMS.

...

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:06:59 -0500

Then you since you are such an expert, you would certainly agree that the benchmark you just posted is more or less worthless, right

...

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:01:03 -0500

I know a bit about JMS benchmarks. I wrote a few the last 10 years. I don't think that I need private lessons here.

...

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:39:03 -0500

Well, setting a max-block-size of 10 MB per queue prevents the OOM and lead to a 15K/sec message rate, though still the half of SwiftMQ's rate. Same problem (slowdown 1K/sec, 800 MB heap, but no OOM) occurs when testing with 25 pairs. ...

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:02:12 -0500

besides showing fancy graphs over amateur benchmarks over the cloud.

At least you should pass these "amateur benchmarks", right?

...

Re: Benchmarks were made to be broken?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:24:00 -0500

besides showing fancy graphs over amateur benchmarks over the cloud.

...