You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cxf.apache.org by Mayank Thakore <th...@gmail.com> on 2007/11/25 13:28:59 UTC
JMS performance
Hi,
I wrote a simple WSDL based web service.
In HTTP I am getting 1000 request/response in 19 secs.
But, in JMS 1000 request/response cost 110+ secs.
Is this OK? Are there any benchmarks?
Any pointers on what can be done for JMS?
I am using CXF 2.0.2 and OpenJMS.
Thanks!
Mayank
Re: JMS performance
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 29/11/2007, Mayank Thakore <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christian / James,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. Now we are able to get JMS to work on par.
Great thanks for letting us know!
> Customer requirements tend to get sticky :)
:)
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com
Re: JMS performance
Posted by Mayank Thakore <th...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christian / James,
Thanks for the suggestions. Now we are able to get JMS to work on par.
Customer requirements tend to get sticky :)
Regards
Mayank
On Nov 28, 2007 4:34 AM, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have tested a simple soap/jms service with activemq in standard setup
> (journaled jdbc persistence).
> 1000 request/responses in 30 secs => about 33/s
>
> Then I changed the setup of activqmq to do only in memory storing of
> messages.
> 1000 request/reponses in 5 secs => 200/s
>
> I think this is quite good performance. Probably we could achieve even
> better results by using more than one thread.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christian
>
>
> Mayank Thakore schrieb:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wrote a simple WSDL based web service.
> >
> > In HTTP I am getting 1000 request/response in 19 secs.
> > But, in JMS 1000 request/response cost 110+ secs.
> >
> > Is this OK? Are there any benchmarks?
> >
> > Any pointers on what can be done for JMS?
> > I am using CXF 2.0.2 and OpenJMS.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mayank
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Christian Schneider
> ---
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
>
Re: JMS performance
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Hi,
I have tested a simple soap/jms service with activemq in standard setup
(journaled jdbc persistence).
1000 request/responses in 30 secs => about 33/s
Then I changed the setup of activqmq to do only in memory storing of
messages.
1000 request/reponses in 5 secs => 200/s
I think this is quite good performance. Probably we could achieve even
better results by using more than one thread.
Best regards,
Christian
Mayank Thakore schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote a simple WSDL based web service.
>
> In HTTP I am getting 1000 request/response in 19 secs.
> But, in JMS 1000 request/response cost 110+ secs.
>
> Is this OK? Are there any benchmarks?
>
> Any pointers on what can be done for JMS?
> I am using CXF 2.0.2 and OpenJMS.
>
> Thanks!
> Mayank
>
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Re: JMS performance
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Firstly remember that you're probably not comparing apples to oranges.
The default in JMS is to use persistence; that means the messages are
all written to disk before they are sent (on both the request and
probably response) which is gonna add hugely to the latency as each
thread is gonna be spending most of its time waiting for stuff to be
stored on disk. So if you really wanna compare like for like, turn off
persistence in JMS - or use HTTP with WS-RM with a *persistent*
implementation (not a RAM version).
Also make absolutely sure you are pooling all the JMS resources;
creating connections, sessions, producers, consumers on a per message
basis is insanely slow - they should all be created up front.
For more help see...
http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-i-use-jms-efficiently.html
http://open.iona.com/wiki/display/ProdInfo/FUSE+Message+Broker+Performance+Tuning+Guide
But hey if you're happy with HTTP and don't have any reliable
messaging requirements there's no real need to change.
On 26/11/2007, Mayank Thakore <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ulhas,
>
> I am using default temp. queue. Earlier when working with XFire we had
> tried static reply queue. But are just gearing up with CXF.
>
> I was interested in relative performance of http / jms. We have been
> given performance requirements for our project. While http meets just
> as it is, jms is a far cry from what we must achieve.
>
> I am currently looking at three things to ascertain where jms could be
> going slow:
>
> 1. OpenJMS server (persistence causing delay?)
> 2. Our WSDL (sync/async differs?)
> 3. CXF jms transport
>
> I am still reading what a web service is after finishing my first
> project where we had used XFire.
>
> Thanks for any and all help
>
> Regards
> Mayank
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2007 9:13 PM, Ulhas Bhole <ul...@iona.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mayank,
> >
> > I don't think anyone has done the benchmark on the cost of
> > request/response on JMS transport.
> >
> > Are you using static reply queue or using default temp. queue for response?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ulhas Bhole
> >
> >
> > Mayank Thakore wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I wrote a simple WSDL based web service.
> > >
> > > In HTTP I am getting 1000 request/response in 19 secs.
> > > But, in JMS 1000 request/response cost 110+ secs.
> > >
> > > Is this OK? Are there any benchmarks?
> > >
> > > Any pointers on what can be done for JMS?
> > > I am using CXF 2.0.2 and OpenJMS.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Mayank
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
> > Registered Number: 171387
> > Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
> >
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com
Re: JMS performance
Posted by Mayank Thakore <th...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ulhas,
I am using default temp. queue. Earlier when working with XFire we had
tried static reply queue. But are just gearing up with CXF.
I was interested in relative performance of http / jms. We have been
given performance requirements for our project. While http meets just
as it is, jms is a far cry from what we must achieve.
I am currently looking at three things to ascertain where jms could be
going slow:
1. OpenJMS server (persistence causing delay?)
2. Our WSDL (sync/async differs?)
3. CXF jms transport
I am still reading what a web service is after finishing my first
project where we had used XFire.
Thanks for any and all help
Regards
Mayank
On Nov 26, 2007 9:13 PM, Ulhas Bhole <ul...@iona.com> wrote:
> Hi Mayank,
>
> I don't think anyone has done the benchmark on the cost of
> request/response on JMS transport.
>
> Are you using static reply queue or using default temp. queue for response?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ulhas Bhole
>
>
> Mayank Thakore wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wrote a simple WSDL based web service.
> >
> > In HTTP I am getting 1000 request/response in 19 secs.
> > But, in JMS 1000 request/response cost 110+ secs.
> >
> > Is this OK? Are there any benchmarks?
> >
> > Any pointers on what can be done for JMS?
> > I am using CXF 2.0.2 and OpenJMS.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mayank
> >
>
> ----------------------------
> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
> Registered Number: 171387
> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
>
Re: JMS performance
Posted by Ulhas Bhole <ul...@iona.com>.
Hi Mayank,
I don't think anyone has done the benchmark on the cost of
request/response on JMS transport.
Are you using static reply queue or using default temp. queue for response?
Regards,
Ulhas Bhole
Mayank Thakore wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote a simple WSDL based web service.
>
> In HTTP I am getting 1000 request/response in 19 secs.
> But, in JMS 1000 request/response cost 110+ secs.
>
> Is this OK? Are there any benchmarks?
>
> Any pointers on what can be done for JMS?
> I am using CXF 2.0.2 and OpenJMS.
>
> Thanks!
> Mayank
>
----------------------------
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland