1 Reply Latest reply on Nov 13, 2009 3:05 AM by Tim Fox

    Comparing Performance of the TimedBuffer on NIO

    Clebert Suconic Master

      I have done two set of tests using jms/perf:


      I - Transacted, using these properties:

      num-messages=150000
      num-warmup-messages=10000
      message-size=1024
      durable=true
      transacted=true
      batch-size=1000
      drain-queue=false
      destination-lookup=perfQueue
      connection-factory-lookup=/ConnectionFactory
      throttle-rate=-1
      dups-ok-acknowledge=false
      disable-message-id=true
      disable-message-timestamp=true
      



      When using AIO: average: 4086.53 msg/s
      When using NIO (no Timers): average: 856.07 msg/s
      When using NIO (new version with timers): average: 1794.07


      II - Non Transacted

      num-messages=15000
      num-warmup-messages=1000
      message-size=1024
      durable=true
      transacted=false
      batch-size=1000
      drain-queue=false
      destination-lookup=perfQueue
      connection-factory-lookup=/ConnectionFactory
      throttle-rate=-1
      dups-ok-acknowledge=false
      disable-message-id=true
      disable-message-timestamp=true


      AIO: 1751.11 msg/sec
      NIO no buffers: 294.97 msg/s
      NIO buffers: 301 msg/s


      For the transacted case, reusing the commit between producer and consumer really made a difference. NIO improved about 100% after those changes.


      For the non-transacted. The tests I did were not significative in terms of finding performance improvements as I would need to add more consumers and producers. But it was good to validate the performance is as good as before at least.



      On the process of measuring this I have made a few tweaks, making the TimedBuffer to only call sync when requested (not on every timed flush).


      My objective now was to validate the changes and make sure it didn cause a regression instead.


      I will do more tests later.