[Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

[khandelwalanuj <kh...@gmail.com>]

I have done performance testing for kahadb, leveldb and replication leveldb.
Details:

*Scenario: *
> ActiveMQ : 5.10
> Machine : Unix
> I tested performance by sending messages to the broker continuously with
> any sleep or wait on producer side and measure the throughput by messages
> sent per seconds. The throughput increase initially but after some some it
> becomes constant. Similarly consumer is also running and consuming the
> messages. I also measure messages received per seconds. I can see that
> after some time producer and consumer throughput becomes equal.  And that
> is what I consider as throughput. 
> I run each test mentioned below for ~2 hours. 
> I did all tests by sending persistence messages.

*Results: 
*

*LevelDB: 
*
1 producer 1 consumer: 0.48K/sec(Queue) || 0.64K/sec (Topic)
2 producer 1 consumer: 0.88K/sec(Queue) || 0.79K/sec (Topic)
1 producer 2 consumer: 0.48K/sec(Queue) || 0.64K/sec (Topic)

*kahaDB: 
*
1 producer 1 consumer: 0.58K/sec(Queue) || 0.6K/sec (Topic)
2 producer 1 consumer: 0.6K/sec(Queue) || 0.6K/sec (Topic)

*Replicated Leveldb: 
*
1 producer 1 consumer: 0.06K/sec(Queue) || 0.06K/sec (Topic)
2 producer 1 consumer: 0.07K/sec(Queue) || 0.06K/sec (Topic)
1 producer 2 consumer: 0.06K/sec(Queue) || 0.05K/sec (Topic)


Questions: 

> Performance is same with kahadb and leveldb which is strange. Why kahadb
> performance is now higher? Any particular configuration I need to tuneup ? 
> Does kahadb provides better performance with multiple producers and single
> consumers ?(multiple writes)
> Replicated leveldb performance is too low. Almost 10 times going down. Is
> this expected ? Or I should tune some configurations to get better
> performance?

Also If there is any testing done by ActiveMQ developers, please point me to
that. 

Thanks,
Anuj









--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Kahadb-vs-Leveldb-vs-Replciated-Leveldb-Performance-Results-tp4688306.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

[Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>]

That message appears to have been delayed by several years. Lest anyone get
confused by the recency of the timestamp, LevelDB is no longer supported
within ActiveMQ, and anyone who chooses to use it as the persistent store
should be prepared to debug and fix problems without assistance from the
mailing list.

Tim

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 5:54 PM danielbiggs <da...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> The two stores are similar in that they both utilize an index to track the
> location and state of messages written into a Journal. The differences lay
> in the way in which the index is implemented among other things. LevelDB is
> a slightly faster index than KahaDB and can provide somewhat better
> performance numbers. In later releases of ActiveMQ the LevelDB store also
> supports replication.
>
> Given that you are on an older release where the LevelDB store
> implementation was still very young I'd recommend sticking with KahaDB as
> it
> is much more mature and has many of the early bugs worked out. The LevelDB
> store in 5.8 is not really production-ready and will probably cause you
> some
> trouble. You can move to the newest release v5.10 and LevelDB will be much
> more robust.
>
> Buy etinax <https://www.buyetilaam.com/product/etinax/ >
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

[danielbiggs <da...@gmail.com>]

The two stores are similar in that they both utilize an index to track the
location and state of messages written into a Journal. The differences lay
in the way in which the index is implemented among other things. LevelDB is
a slightly faster index than KahaDB and can provide somewhat better
performance numbers. In later releases of ActiveMQ the LevelDB store also
supports replication.

Given that you are on an older release where the LevelDB store
implementation was still very young I'd recommend sticking with KahaDB as it
is much more mature and has many of the early bugs worked out. The LevelDB
store in 5.8 is not really production-ready and will probably cause you some
trouble. You can move to the newest release v5.10 and LevelDB will be much
more robust.

Buy etinax <https://www.buyetilaam.com/product/etinax/ >  



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

[Kevin Burton <bu...@spinn3r.com>]

god. the performance of replicated levelDB seems horrible here.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:19 PM, khandelwalanuj <khandelwal.anuj90@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> I have done performance testing for kahadb, leveldb and replication
> leveldb.
> Details:
>
> *Scenario: *
> > ActiveMQ : 5.10
> > Machine : Unix
> > I tested performance by sending messages to the broker continuously with
> > any sleep or wait on producer side and measure the throughput by messages
> > sent per seconds. The throughput increase initially but after some some
> it
> > becomes constant. Similarly consumer is also running and consuming the
> > messages. I also measure messages received per seconds. I can see that
> > after some time producer and consumer throughput becomes equal.  And that
> > is what I consider as throughput.
> > I run each test mentioned below for ~2 hours.
> > I did all tests by sending persistence messages.
>
> *Results:
> *
>
> *LevelDB:
> *
> 1 producer 1 consumer: 0.48K/sec(Queue) || 0.64K/sec (Topic)
> 2 producer 1 consumer: 0.88K/sec(Queue) || 0.79K/sec (Topic)
> 1 producer 2 consumer: 0.48K/sec(Queue) || 0.64K/sec (Topic)
>
> *kahaDB:
> *
> 1 producer 1 consumer: 0.58K/sec(Queue) || 0.6K/sec (Topic)
> 2 producer 1 consumer: 0.6K/sec(Queue) || 0.6K/sec (Topic)
>
> *Replicated Leveldb:
> *
> 1 producer 1 consumer: 0.06K/sec(Queue) || 0.06K/sec (Topic)
> 2 producer 1 consumer: 0.07K/sec(Queue) || 0.06K/sec (Topic)
> 1 producer 2 consumer: 0.06K/sec(Queue) || 0.05K/sec (Topic)
>
>
> Questions:
>
> > Performance is same with kahadb and leveldb which is strange. Why kahadb
> > performance is now higher? Any particular configuration I need to tuneup
> ?
> > Does kahadb provides better performance with multiple producers and
> single
> > consumers ?(multiple writes)
> > Replicated leveldb performance is too low. Almost 10 times going down. Is
> > this expected ? Or I should tune some configurations to get better
> > performance?
>
> Also If there is any testing done by ActiveMQ developers, please point me
> to
> that.
>
> Thanks,
> Anuj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Kahadb-vs-Leveldb-vs-Replciated-Leveldb-Performance-Results-tp4688306.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


-- 

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

[tisasmith <ti...@gmail.com>]

Hello,

Informative article. Thanks a lot for sharing such nice information here. 

Regards
* Buy Generic Levitra <http://www.sureviagra.com/generic-levitra.html>  *



--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Kahadb-vs-Leveldb-vs-Replciated-Leveldb-Performance-Results-tp4688306p4713410.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

[elliethomas <el...@gmail.com>]

I would love to collect some more details about this matter. It is a very
nice post and i am highly thankful to you for sharing these details with us.
Keep it up. See more at: http://www.angelmeds.com/



--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Kahadb-vs-Leveldb-vs-Replciated-Leveldb-Performance-Results-tp4688306p4710254.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

[Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>]

the difference between kahadb and leveldb stores is really only visible
when there are multiple competing consumers and producers.
Both need to persist messages to a journal so they will both be disk bound
for writes/sends.
kahadb has a single index lock that becomes a bottleneck for adds and acks.
leveldb allows concurrent reads and more parallel updates.
There needs to be contention (mulitple completing consumer connections) to
make this visible.

On 3 December 2014 at 06:19, khandelwalanuj <kh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have done performance testing for kahadb, leveldb and replication
> leveldb.
> Details:
>
> *Scenario: *
> > ActiveMQ : 5.10
> > Machine : Unix
> > I tested performance by sending messages to the broker continuously with
> > any sleep or wait on producer side and measure the throughput by messages
> > sent per seconds. The throughput increase initially but after some some
> it
> > becomes constant. Similarly consumer is also running and consuming the
> > messages. I also measure messages received per seconds. I can see that
> > after some time producer and consumer throughput becomes equal.  And that
> > is what I consider as throughput.
> > I run each test mentioned below for ~2 hours.
> > I did all tests by sending persistence messages.
>
> *Results:
> *
>
> *LevelDB:
> *
> 1 producer 1 consumer: 0.48K/sec(Queue) || 0.64K/sec (Topic)
> 2 producer 1 consumer: 0.88K/sec(Queue) || 0.79K/sec (Topic)
> 1 producer 2 consumer: 0.48K/sec(Queue) || 0.64K/sec (Topic)
>
> *kahaDB:
> *
> 1 producer 1 consumer: 0.58K/sec(Queue) || 0.6K/sec (Topic)
> 2 producer 1 consumer: 0.6K/sec(Queue) || 0.6K/sec (Topic)
>
> *Replicated Leveldb:
> *
> 1 producer 1 consumer: 0.06K/sec(Queue) || 0.06K/sec (Topic)
> 2 producer 1 consumer: 0.07K/sec(Queue) || 0.06K/sec (Topic)
> 1 producer 2 consumer: 0.06K/sec(Queue) || 0.05K/sec (Topic)
>
>
> Questions:
>
> > Performance is same with kahadb and leveldb which is strange. Why kahadb
> > performance is now higher? Any particular configuration I need to tuneup
> ?
> > Does kahadb provides better performance with multiple producers and
> single
> > consumers ?(multiple writes)
> > Replicated leveldb performance is too low. Almost 10 times going down. Is
> > this expected ? Or I should tune some configurations to get better
> > performance?
>
> Also If there is any testing done by ActiveMQ developers, please point me
> to
> that.
>
> Thanks,
> Anuj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Kahadb-vs-Leveldb-vs-Replciated-Leveldb-Performance-Results-tp4688306.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>