You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Kenneth Giusti <kg...@apache.org> on 2011/10/11 01:14:39 UTC
Review Request: QPID-3417: add timestamp to message delivery properties on
arrival at broker.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Ted Ross.
Summary
-------
A slight deviation from the design originally proposed in QPID-3417 - this change adds the timestamp delivery property to messages using the relatively simple approach as described in AMQP-0.10.
Other than the approach itself, the QMF management interface & schema changes seem like I could be guilty of overkill - I'd like feedback before I go too far down that hole...
This addresses bug qpid-3417.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3417
Diffs
-----
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.h 1180888
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1180888
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.h 1180888
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp 1180888
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.cpp 1180888
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/amqp0_10/IncomingMessages.cpp 1180888
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/BrokerOptions.cpp PRE-CREATION
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/Makefile.am 1180888
/trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml 1180888
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff
Testing
-------
One unit test to verify the timestamp is being added. No dynamic control via mgmt yet.
Simple perf testing didn't seem like the hit wasn't too bad so far:
Pre patch, from trunk:
[root@mrg44 tests]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
68428 68388 0.16 69.59 4.16
68238 68201 0.17 44.18 3.82
68622 68581 0.16 102.52 4.60
68688 68647 0.18 117.33 5.29
69142 69104 0.19 103.30 4.50
Patched, no timestamping:
[root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
67543 67471 0.17 79.76 4.37
69069 69028 0.15 42.92 3.78
68481 68439 0.17 45.91 3.98
68674 68636 0.18 41.30 3.74
67588 67587 0.17 60.23 4.21
Patched, timestamping enabled:
[root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
67228 67227 0.21 41.80 3.97
67697 67659 0.19 43.01 4.19
67405 67368 0.19 101.61 4.99
66515 66511 0.15 41.85 4.10
67664 67622 0.17 47.35 4.01
Thanks,
Kenneth
Re: Review Request: QPID-3417: add timestamp to message delivery properties
on arrival at broker.
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
> On 2011-10-11 07:51:39, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > /trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml, line 106
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff/1/?file=49296#file49296line106>
> >
> > I'm torn on this approach to management.
> >
> > On the one hand I like having a relatively loose schema that can be evolved more easily, and I like having generic mechanisms rather than lots of specific methods.
> >
> > On the other hand the use of the map as the value feels clunky. It also feels as if the control of attributes should be a more intrinsic part of QMF. And finally I'm concerned that the vision for management at a higher level isn't really clear and our piecemeal changes (not just this but over many other changes) is lacking coherence.
>
> Kenneth Giusti wrote:
> Me too - I'd prefer having "enableTimestamp" as a simple boolean QMF property with RW access, but QMF doesn't yet support that type of access.
>
> The ability to turn this feature on and off at runtime is critical - at best I'll have to go with a set of "get/set" timestamping methods.
I think get/set timestamping methods would be the best option at this point. We already have get/set log-level. We can then try and genericise the approach at some later point.
- Gordon
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/#review2505
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-10-10 23:14:39, Kenneth Giusti wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2011-10-10 23:14:39)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> A slight deviation from the design originally proposed in QPID-3417 - this change adds the timestamp delivery property to messages using the relatively simple approach as described in AMQP-0.10.
>
> Other than the approach itself, the QMF management interface & schema changes seem like I could be guilty of overkill - I'd like feedback before I go too far down that hole...
>
>
> This addresses bug qpid-3417.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3417
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.h 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.h 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/amqp0_10/IncomingMessages.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/BrokerOptions.cpp PRE-CREATION
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/Makefile.am 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml 1180888
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> One unit test to verify the timestamp is being added. No dynamic control via mgmt yet.
>
> Simple perf testing didn't seem like the hit wasn't too bad so far:
>
> Pre patch, from trunk:
> [root@mrg44 tests]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 68428 68388 0.16 69.59 4.16
> 68238 68201 0.17 44.18 3.82
> 68622 68581 0.16 102.52 4.60
> 68688 68647 0.18 117.33 5.29
> 69142 69104 0.19 103.30 4.50
>
>
> Patched, no timestamping:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67543 67471 0.17 79.76 4.37
> 69069 69028 0.15 42.92 3.78
> 68481 68439 0.17 45.91 3.98
> 68674 68636 0.18 41.30 3.74
> 67588 67587 0.17 60.23 4.21
>
>
> Patched, timestamping enabled:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67228 67227 0.21 41.80 3.97
> 67697 67659 0.19 43.01 4.19
> 67405 67368 0.19 101.61 4.99
> 66515 66511 0.15 41.85 4.10
> 67664 67622 0.17 47.35 4.01
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kenneth
>
>
Re: Review Request: QPID-3417: add timestamp to message delivery properties
on arrival at broker.
Posted by Kenneth Giusti <kg...@apache.org>.
> On 2011-10-11 07:51:39, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp, line 380
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff/1/?file=49291#file49291line380>
> >
> > Might be worth renaming this method. It should have been renamed much earlier, but now it seems if anything even more odd given there is a parameter that effectively indicates whether to set the timestamp.
> >
> > Maybe just routed() or handled()?
Agreed - I'll touch that up.
> On 2011-10-11 07:51:39, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > /trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml, line 106
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff/1/?file=49296#file49296line106>
> >
> > I'm torn on this approach to management.
> >
> > On the one hand I like having a relatively loose schema that can be evolved more easily, and I like having generic mechanisms rather than lots of specific methods.
> >
> > On the other hand the use of the map as the value feels clunky. It also feels as if the control of attributes should be a more intrinsic part of QMF. And finally I'm concerned that the vision for management at a higher level isn't really clear and our piecemeal changes (not just this but over many other changes) is lacking coherence.
Me too - I'd prefer having "enableTimestamp" as a simple boolean QMF property with RW access, but QMF doesn't yet support that type of access.
The ability to turn this feature on and off at runtime is critical - at best I'll have to go with a set of "get/set" timestamping methods.
- Kenneth
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/#review2505
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-10-10 23:14:39, Kenneth Giusti wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2011-10-10 23:14:39)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> A slight deviation from the design originally proposed in QPID-3417 - this change adds the timestamp delivery property to messages using the relatively simple approach as described in AMQP-0.10.
>
> Other than the approach itself, the QMF management interface & schema changes seem like I could be guilty of overkill - I'd like feedback before I go too far down that hole...
>
>
> This addresses bug qpid-3417.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3417
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.h 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.h 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/amqp0_10/IncomingMessages.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/BrokerOptions.cpp PRE-CREATION
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/Makefile.am 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml 1180888
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> One unit test to verify the timestamp is being added. No dynamic control via mgmt yet.
>
> Simple perf testing didn't seem like the hit wasn't too bad so far:
>
> Pre patch, from trunk:
> [root@mrg44 tests]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 68428 68388 0.16 69.59 4.16
> 68238 68201 0.17 44.18 3.82
> 68622 68581 0.16 102.52 4.60
> 68688 68647 0.18 117.33 5.29
> 69142 69104 0.19 103.30 4.50
>
>
> Patched, no timestamping:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67543 67471 0.17 79.76 4.37
> 69069 69028 0.15 42.92 3.78
> 68481 68439 0.17 45.91 3.98
> 68674 68636 0.18 41.30 3.74
> 67588 67587 0.17 60.23 4.21
>
>
> Patched, timestamping enabled:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67228 67227 0.21 41.80 3.97
> 67697 67659 0.19 43.01 4.19
> 67405 67368 0.19 101.61 4.99
> 66515 66511 0.15 41.85 4.10
> 67664 67622 0.17 47.35 4.01
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kenneth
>
>
Re: Review Request: QPID-3417: add timestamp to message delivery properties
on arrival at broker.
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/#review2505
-----------------------------------------------------------
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/#comment5669>
Might be worth renaming this method. It should have been renamed much earlier, but now it seems if anything even more odd given there is a parameter that effectively indicates whether to set the timestamp.
Maybe just routed() or handled()?
/trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/#comment5670>
I'm torn on this approach to management.
On the one hand I like having a relatively loose schema that can be evolved more easily, and I like having generic mechanisms rather than lots of specific methods.
On the other hand the use of the map as the value feels clunky. It also feels as if the control of attributes should be a more intrinsic part of QMF. And finally I'm concerned that the vision for management at a higher level isn't really clear and our piecemeal changes (not just this but over many other changes) is lacking coherence.
- Gordon
On 2011-10-10 23:14:39, Kenneth Giusti wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2011-10-10 23:14:39)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> A slight deviation from the design originally proposed in QPID-3417 - this change adds the timestamp delivery property to messages using the relatively simple approach as described in AMQP-0.10.
>
> Other than the approach itself, the QMF management interface & schema changes seem like I could be guilty of overkill - I'd like feedback before I go too far down that hole...
>
>
> This addresses bug qpid-3417.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3417
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.h 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.h 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/amqp0_10/IncomingMessages.cpp 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/BrokerOptions.cpp PRE-CREATION
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/Makefile.am 1180888
> /trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml 1180888
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> One unit test to verify the timestamp is being added. No dynamic control via mgmt yet.
>
> Simple perf testing didn't seem like the hit wasn't too bad so far:
>
> Pre patch, from trunk:
> [root@mrg44 tests]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 68428 68388 0.16 69.59 4.16
> 68238 68201 0.17 44.18 3.82
> 68622 68581 0.16 102.52 4.60
> 68688 68647 0.18 117.33 5.29
> 69142 69104 0.19 103.30 4.50
>
>
> Patched, no timestamping:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67543 67471 0.17 79.76 4.37
> 69069 69028 0.15 42.92 3.78
> 68481 68439 0.17 45.91 3.98
> 68674 68636 0.18 41.30 3.74
> 67588 67587 0.17 60.23 4.21
>
>
> Patched, timestamping enabled:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67228 67227 0.21 41.80 3.97
> 67697 67659 0.19 43.01 4.19
> 67405 67368 0.19 101.61 4.99
> 66515 66511 0.15 41.85 4.10
> 67664 67622 0.17 47.35 4.01
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kenneth
>
>
Re: Review Request: QPID-3417: add timestamp to message delivery properties
on arrival at broker.
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/#review2532
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
- Gordon
On 2011-10-12 16:15:37, Kenneth Giusti wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2011-10-12 16:15:37)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> A slight deviation from the design originally proposed in QPID-3417 - this change adds the timestamp delivery property to messages using the relatively simple approach as described in AMQP-0.10.
>
> Other than the approach itself, the QMF management interface & schema changes seem like I could be guilty of overkill - I'd like feedback before I go too far down that hole...
>
>
> This addresses bug qpid-3417.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3417
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.h 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.h 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.cpp 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SessionState.cpp 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/amqp0_10/IncomingMessages.cpp 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/management/ManagementAgent.cpp 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/BrokerOptions.cpp PRE-CREATION
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/Makefile.am 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/QueueTest.cpp 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/acl.py 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/java/broker/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/qmf/QMFService.java 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml 1182419
> /trunk/qpid/tests/src/py/qpid_tests/broker_0_10/management.py 1182419
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> One unit test to verify the timestamp is being added. No dynamic control via mgmt yet.
>
> Simple perf testing didn't seem like the hit wasn't too bad so far:
>
> Pre patch, from trunk:
> [root@mrg44 tests]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 68428 68388 0.16 69.59 4.16
> 68238 68201 0.17 44.18 3.82
> 68622 68581 0.16 102.52 4.60
> 68688 68647 0.18 117.33 5.29
> 69142 69104 0.19 103.30 4.50
>
>
> Patched, no timestamping:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67543 67471 0.17 79.76 4.37
> 69069 69028 0.15 42.92 3.78
> 68481 68439 0.17 45.91 3.98
> 68674 68636 0.18 41.30 3.74
> 67588 67587 0.17 60.23 4.21
>
>
> Patched, timestamping enabled:
> [root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
> send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
> 67228 67227 0.21 41.80 3.97
> 67697 67659 0.19 43.01 4.19
> 67405 67368 0.19 101.61 4.99
> 66515 66511 0.15 41.85 4.10
> 67664 67622 0.17 47.35 4.01
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kenneth
>
>
Re: Review Request: QPID-3417: add timestamp to message delivery properties
on arrival at broker.
Posted by Kenneth Giusti <kg...@apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated 2011-10-12 16:15:37.240703)
Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Ted Ross.
Changes
-------
A complete patch, including additional tests.
The performance does drop as expected when enabled, but the perf when disabled does not appear to degenerate from current trunk.
Patch w/o timestamping enabled:
[root@mrg44 tests]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
68834 68794 0.18 47.48 3.77
69200 69158 0.20 59.15 4.14
69116 69074 0.16 44.76 3.77
69273 69270 0.19 120.19 4.62
68360 68320 0.17 59.79 3.96
And enabled:
[root@mrg44 src]# ./qpidd -d --auth no --enable-timestamp=yes
[root@mrg44 src]# ps aux | grep qpidd
root 19248 0.0 0.0 135624 3544 ? Ssl 11:59 0:00 /root/kgiusti/qpid/cpp/src/.libs/lt-qpidd -d --auth no --enable-timestamp=yes
root 19259 0.0 0.0 61180 772 pts/0 S+ 11:59 0:00 grep qpidd
[root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
65561 65523 0.19 43.84 3.88
64773 64739 0.17 43.86 4.06
66266 66225 0.19 142.72 5.48
64238 64203 0.18 43.09 4.29
66369 66333 0.17 70.70 4.23
Summary
-------
A slight deviation from the design originally proposed in QPID-3417 - this change adds the timestamp delivery property to messages using the relatively simple approach as described in AMQP-0.10.
Other than the approach itself, the QMF management interface & schema changes seem like I could be guilty of overkill - I'd like feedback before I go too far down that hole...
This addresses bug qpid-3417.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3417
Diffs (updated)
-----
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.h 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.h 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Message.cpp 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.cpp 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SessionState.cpp 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/client/amqp0_10/IncomingMessages.cpp 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/management/ManagementAgent.cpp 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/BrokerOptions.cpp PRE-CREATION
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/Makefile.am 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/QueueTest.cpp 1182419
/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/acl.py 1182419
/trunk/qpid/java/broker/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/qmf/QMFService.java 1182419
/trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml 1182419
/trunk/qpid/tests/src/py/qpid_tests/broker_0_10/management.py 1182419
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/2335/diff
Testing
-------
One unit test to verify the timestamp is being added. No dynamic control via mgmt yet.
Simple perf testing didn't seem like the hit wasn't too bad so far:
Pre patch, from trunk:
[root@mrg44 tests]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
68428 68388 0.16 69.59 4.16
68238 68201 0.17 44.18 3.82
68622 68581 0.16 102.52 4.60
68688 68647 0.18 117.33 5.29
69142 69104 0.19 103.30 4.50
Patched, no timestamping:
[root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
67543 67471 0.17 79.76 4.37
69069 69028 0.15 42.92 3.78
68481 68439 0.17 45.91 3.98
68674 68636 0.18 41.30 3.74
67588 67587 0.17 60.23 4.21
Patched, timestamping enabled:
[root@mrg44 src]# qpid-cpp-benchmark --repeat=5 --summarize --messages=5000000
send-tp recv-tp l-min l-max l-avg
67228 67227 0.21 41.80 3.97
67697 67659 0.19 43.01 4.19
67405 67368 0.19 101.61 4.99
66515 66511 0.15 41.85 4.10
67664 67622 0.17 47.35 4.01
Thanks,
Kenneth