You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt> on 2010/09/13 11:07:35 UTC
Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Hi,
I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I made some
tests and the difference is between 625857 microseconds/packet in
Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet in Linux. This is the average of
10.000.000 packets.
The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the Linux libs are
from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported by the
project?
Thank you,
Bruno
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt>.
Hi,
Resume of previous conversations:
There is a big difference handling messages from a Linux C++ Qpid
broker, between Windows and Linux. Windows client is about 20x slower.
I made some profiling and Steve Huston is helping me detecting the
problem.
Can anyone help too?
Thank you,
Bruno Matos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt>.
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:48 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 10:49 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > These look like profiling info from the client side, is
> > that right? It
> > > shows a lot of waiting, which indicates the delays are
> > probably in the
> > > broker side. Could you please profile the broker while running your
> > > timing test?
> >
> > Yes, I can do the profiling in broker, but notice that I use
> > the same broker all the time. Do you think it still helps?
> > The broker is running on Fedora 13.
>
> Ok, I forgot about this... No, don't bother profiling the broker. But it
> would be useful to profile the client again, but run a few thousand
> messages to make sure that the message-processing path stands out from
> the noise.
In attachment is a sleepy profile of 1.000.000 messages.
>
> Thanks,
> -Steve
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bruno Matos [mailto:bruno.matos@paradigmaxis.pt]
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:36 AM
> > > > To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:49 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're welcome.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a
> > Windows client.
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > > > > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110
> > > > microseconds/packet
> > > > > > > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6,
> > > > and the Linux
> > > > > > > > > libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm using 0.6.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution
> > > > supported by
> > > > > > > > > the project?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > > > > > > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's
> > > > 0.6 - probably
> > > > > > > > not significantly different from what you tested.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> > > > > > > less, but not enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> > > > > > > please let me
> > > > > > > > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
> > > >
> > > > I have two output files from Sleepy, with asynchronous and
> > > > synchronous session. Sleepy can be found in
> > > > www.codersnotes.com/sleepy.
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> > > > > > > do I need to get useful profiling information?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something
> > > > > > like Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread
> > > > measuring tools
> > > > > > (I forget the name).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a simple program now that sends and receives
> > > > messages. It starts
> > > > > counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop
> > > > counting when
> > > > > message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux
> > and 39118
> > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000
> > > > packets. I will
> > > > > try Very Sleepy free profiling tool.
> > > >
Regards,
Bruno
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Hi Bruno,
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 10:49 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > These look like profiling info from the client side, is
> that right? It
> > shows a lot of waiting, which indicates the delays are
> probably in the
> > broker side. Could you please profile the broker while running your
> > timing test?
>
> Yes, I can do the profiling in broker, but notice that I use
> the same broker all the time. Do you think it still helps?
> The broker is running on Fedora 13.
Ok, I forgot about this... No, don't bother profiling the broker. But it
would be useful to profile the client again, but run a few thousand
messages to make sure that the message-processing path stands out from
the noise.
Thanks,
-Steve
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bruno Matos [mailto:bruno.matos@paradigmaxis.pt]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:36 AM
> > > To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:49 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're welcome.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a
> Windows client.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > > > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110
> > > microseconds/packet
> > > > > > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6,
> > > and the Linux
> > > > > > > > libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm using 0.6.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution
> > > supported by
> > > > > > > > the project?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > > > > > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's
> > > 0.6 - probably
> > > > > > > not significantly different from what you tested.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> > > > > > less, but not enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> > > > > > please let me
> > > > > > > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
> > >
> > > I have two output files from Sleepy, with asynchronous and
> > > synchronous session. Sleepy can be found in
> > > www.codersnotes.com/sleepy.
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> > > > > > do I need to get useful profiling information?
> > > > >
> > > > > Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something
> > > > > like Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread
> > > measuring tools
> > > > > (I forget the name).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a simple program now that sends and receives
> > > messages. It starts
> > > > counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop
> > > counting when
> > > > message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux
> and 39118
> > > > microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000
> > > packets. I will
> > > > try Very Sleepy free profiling tool.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Bruno Matos
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Bruno
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt>.
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 10:49 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> These look like profiling info from the client side, is that right? It
> shows a lot of waiting, which indicates the delays are probably in the
> broker side. Could you please profile the broker while running your
> timing test?
Yes, I can do the profiling in broker, but notice that I use the same
broker all the time. Do you think it still helps? The broker is running
on Fedora 13.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno Matos [mailto:bruno.matos@paradigmaxis.pt]
> > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:36 AM
> > To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:49 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > >
> > > > You're welcome.
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > > > > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110
> > microseconds/packet
> > > > > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6,
> > and the Linux
> > > > > > > libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm using 0.6.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution
> > supported by
> > > > > > > the project?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > > > > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's
> > 0.6 - probably
> > > > > > not significantly different from what you tested.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> > > > > less, but not enough.
> > > >
> > > > Right...
> > > >
> > > > > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> > > > > please let me
> > > > > > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
> >
> > I have two output files from Sleepy, with asynchronous and synchronous
> > session. Sleepy can be found in www.codersnotes.com/sleepy.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> > > > > do I need to get useful profiling information?
> > > >
> > > > Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something like
> > > > Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread
> > measuring tools
> > > > (I forget the name).
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have a simple program now that sends and receives
> > messages. It starts
> > > counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop
> > counting when
> > > message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux and 39118
> > > microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000
> > packets. I will
> > > try Very Sleepy free profiling tool.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Bruno Matos
> >
>
>
Regards,
Bruno
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
These look like profiling info from the client side, is that right? It
shows a lot of waiting, which indicates the delays are probably in the
broker side. Could you please profile the broker while running your
timing test?
Thanks,
-Steve
--
Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation
Total Lifecycle Support for Your Networked Applications
http://www.riverace.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Matos [mailto:bruno.matos@paradigmaxis.pt]
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:36 AM
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
>
>
> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:49 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > Hi Bruno,
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > >
> > > You're welcome.
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > > > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110
> microseconds/packet
> > > > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6,
> and the Linux
> > > > > > libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> > > > >
> > > > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> > > >
> > > > I'm using 0.6.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution
> supported by
> > > > > > the project?
> > > > >
> > > > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > > > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's
> 0.6 - probably
> > > > > not significantly different from what you tested.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> > > > less, but not enough.
> > >
> > > Right...
> > >
> > > > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> > > > please let me
> > > > > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
>
> I have two output files from Sleepy, with asynchronous and synchronous
> session. Sleepy can be found in www.codersnotes.com/sleepy.
>
> > > >
> > > > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> > > > do I need to get useful profiling information?
> > >
> > > Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something like
> > > Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread
> measuring tools
> > > (I forget the name).
> > >
> >
> > I have a simple program now that sends and receives
> messages. It starts
> > counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop
> counting when
> > message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux and 39118
> > microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000
> packets. I will
> > try Very Sleepy free profiling tool.
>
> Thank you,
> Bruno Matos
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt>.
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:49 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > Hi Bruno,
> >
> > > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > >
> > > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> > > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > > > >
> > > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> > > > > Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> > > >
> > > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> > >
> > > I'm using 0.6.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> > > > > by the project?
> > > >
> > > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably
> > > > not significantly different from what you tested.
> > > >
> > >
> > > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> > > less, but not enough.
> >
> > Right...
> >
> > > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> > > please let me
> > > > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
I have two output files from Sleepy, with asynchronous and synchronous
session. Sleepy can be found in www.codersnotes.com/sleepy.
> > >
> > > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> > > do I need to get useful profiling information?
> >
> > Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something like
> > Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread measuring tools
> > (I forget the name).
> >
>
> I have a simple program now that sends and receives messages. It starts
> counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop counting when
> message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux and 39118
> microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000 packets. I will
> try Very Sleepy free profiling tool.
Thank you,
Bruno Matos
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt>.
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> > Thanks for the reply.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > Hi Bruno,
> > >
> > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > > >
> > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> > > > Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> > >
> > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> >
> > I'm using 0.6.
> >
> > >
> > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> > > > by the project?
> > >
> > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably
> > > not significantly different from what you tested.
> > >
> >
> > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> > less, but not enough.
>
> Right...
>
> > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> > please let me
> > > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
> >
> > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> > do I need to get useful profiling information?
>
> Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something like
> Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread measuring tools
> (I forget the name).
>
I have a simple program now that sends and receives messages. It starts
counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop counting when
message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux and 39118
microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000 packets. I will
try Very Sleepy free profiling tool.
Regards,
Bruno
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Hi Bruno,
> Thanks for the reply.
You're welcome.
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > Hi Bruno,
> >
> > > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > >
> > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> > > Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> >
> > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
>
> I'm using 0.6.
>
> >
> > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> > > by the project?
> >
> > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably
> > not significantly different from what you tested.
> >
>
> With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> less, but not enough.
Right...
> > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> please let me
> > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
>
> I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> do I need to get useful profiling information?
Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something like
Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread measuring tools
(I forget the name).
-Steve
--
Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation
Total Lifecycle Support for Your Networked Applications
http://www.riverace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Hi Bruno,
> Thanks for the reply.
You're welcome.
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > Hi Bruno,
> >
> > > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > >
> > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> > > Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> >
> > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
>
> I'm using 0.6.
>
> >
> > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> > > by the project?
> >
> > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably
> > not significantly different from what you tested.
> >
>
> With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> less, but not enough.
Right...
> > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> please let me
> > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
>
> I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What
> do I need to get useful profiling information?
Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something like
Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread measuring tools
(I forget the name).
-Steve
--
Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation
Total Lifecycle Support for Your Networked Applications
http://www.riverace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt>.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the reply.
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> >
> > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> > Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
>
> What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
I'm using 0.6.
>
> > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> > by the project?
>
> You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably not
> significantly different from what you tested.
>
With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little less, but not
enough.
> If you get profiling info that may help to improve this, please let me
> know. I'm also available to help get that information.
I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What do I need to
get useful profiling information?
Best regards,
Bruno
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Bruno Matos <br...@paradigmaxis.pt>.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the reply.
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> > made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> >
> > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> > Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
>
> What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
I'm using 0.6.
>
> > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> > by the project?
>
> You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably not
> significantly different from what you tested.
>
With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little less, but not
enough.
> If you get profiling info that may help to improve this, please let me
> know. I'm also available to help get that information.
I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What do I need to
get useful profiling information?
Best regards,
Bruno
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Hi Bruno,
> I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
>
> The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> by the project?
You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably not
significantly different from what you tested.
If you get profiling info that may help to improve this, please let me
know. I'm also available to help get that information.
Best regards,
-Steve
--
Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation
Total Lifecycle Support for Your Networked Applications
http://www.riverace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Hi Bruno,
> I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client. I
> made some tests and the difference is between 625857
> microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 microseconds/packet
> in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
>
> The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, and the
> Linux libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution supported
> by the project?
You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 0.6 - probably not
significantly different from what you tested.
If you get profiling info that may help to improve this, please let me
know. I'm also available to help get that information.
Best regards,
-Steve
--
Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation
Total Lifecycle Support for Your Networked Applications
http://www.riverace.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org