Was this all running on a single 6-cpu host? I found your initial results surprising given that I have done similar testing just a few weeks ago that struggled to make a third of your throughput, but my tests involved two 2-cpu hosts, so this likely accounts for the difference.
Also to clarify, when you say 10 consumers processed 5820/s, are you referring to the total throughput as being 5820, or each consumer handling 5820, for a total of 58k/s? Assuming the former, I believe you are experiencing the same limitations I was running into, which is the consumer being CPU bound. You should be able to investigate further using top or sar. My peak throughput configuration involved 3 producers and 2 consumers, although this was with each process running its own embedded broker. Sean On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM, zaoliu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An issue when testing performance s when I increase the number of > consumers > for testing non-persistent messages, the throughput get down very fast. I > can't find the reason for it. Each consumer thread is a separate > connection > to the broker. > Below is my result for testing (all using one producer to send messages in > a > separate JVM): > 1 consumer: 12683/s > 2 consumers: 11289/s > 3 consumers: 9956/s > 4 consumers: 8638/s > 10 consumers: 5820/s > > To my understanding, increasing the consumer numbers should improve the > throughput of brokers, but the result is opposite to my expectation. > > Zao > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Confusing-results-for-my-performance-testing-tp15622219s2354p15622219.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
