The parameters we had used with the original QpidBench program is as follows:
-c 1 -i 1000 -s 1024 -m both --timestamp false --message-id false
--message-cache true --persistent true --jms true
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-p
Hi Robbie,
Thanks for the reply. We also didn't see much performance difference
between broker instances based on Derby store and berkeley db store. However
readings we obtained now are quite ok, here's the summary of readings we
have with Derby persistence:
We have also tinkered a little bit wit
The reason I said that was that it takes a *lot* longer to run
some(/all) of the system tests when using the DerbyStore, but doing
some very noddy tests today with a single consumer and producer showed
there wasnt any great difference between them. Both were noticably
slower than historically, so i
Hi Robbie,
I did not notice that the BDB store was faster than the Derby store when I
checked some time back.
Thanks,
Danushka
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> Hi Vinay,
>
> I havent done any performance benchmarking of the Derby store to know
> what a representative num
in terms of design, architecture and interaction with messaging
layer makes BDB better than Derby store?
Thanks
Vijay
-Original Message-
From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:38 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Qpid Java Broker
Hi Vinay,
I havent done any performance benchmarking of the Derby store to know
what a representative number would actually be, but I will try to take
a look at some point. I havent actually used QpidBench, so can I ask
if there were any specific command(s) you ran so I can try the same
scenarios?
