Performances of ServiceMix WSDL-First example

I have spent some time profiling ServiceMix a bit, and particularly the WSDL-First example from the distribution. Here are the results while running a SOAP UI load tests on the example from the 3.1 distribution and the upcoming 3.1.1 distribution:


Version,   min, max, avg,   last, cnt,   tps,    bytes,    bps,    err
SMX 3.1,   9,   234, 20.64, 14,   57724, 484.43, 19106644, 159450, 0
SMX 3.1.1, 5,   204, 16.75, 14,   71065, 596.99, 23522515, 196095, 0


The most interesting number is the tps (transaction per seconds) absolute number: roughly 600 transactions per seconds sounds like a reasonable number (this small tests were running on my laptop without any particular tuning on the JVM or ServiceMix configuration) !

The other one is the tpc increase between 3.1 and 3.1.1:

   595.99 / 484.43 = 1.2324

which means this sample performances for this sample has been boosted by 23 percents !

Comments

Anonymous said…
hi

i am interested in ServiceMix Load Testing !

would you please explain more details about your test ?

Good Luck
3:39 PM
Guillaume Nodet said…
Well, this was a really simple test as I said. I just used the wsdl-first example from the distribution as is, and used SOAP UI to send SOAP requests from 10 concurrent threads during 2 minutes. That's all !
4:09 PM
Anonymous said…
Useless blogging here we go..
11:11 AM
Bruce Snyder said…
Nice work Guillaume!
5:34 AM
Eduardo Burgos said…
How do you communicate between soapui and servicemix? do you necessarily need an http endpoint? or can soapui connect directly to servicemix?

I'm interested in this kind of test
9:50 PM
Guillaume Nodet said…
Unless you are in the same JVM, you have to use a protocol to communicate with ServiceMix, which is the whole point of BCs. I agree that SE endpoints could be automatically exposed to BCs to ease configuration, but that's another story.
10:03 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Apache Karaf

ApacheCon was really interesting this year! Recently, a lot of people have expressed a real interest in ServiceMix Kernel , our generic OSGi distribution for server side applications. We've been discussing moving this subproject into Apache Felix for several reasons: raise the visibility and awareness on ServiceMix Kernel attract a broader community Several Apache projects are planning to use ServiceMix Kernel as their container: this includes Apache James , Apache Directory and Apache ActiveMQ . The Apache Sling community is also willing to contribute to this effort along with some other groups like the OPS4J project. During this discussion, a name as been proposed by Jamie Goodyear: Apache Karaf . A carafe is a small container used for serving wine and other drinks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carafe). In similarity to the name the Kernel allows applications to be more easily handled, and improves their characteristics (much like a bottle of wine left to breath in a dec...
Read more

Camel Endpoint DSL

Image
Camel Endpoint DSL One of the new features of Camel 3.0  is an Endpoint DSL.  This new API aims to provide a type safe replacement for the URLs that are used in Camel to designate the consumer or producer endpoints.  These URLs provide 3 things: the scheme of the URL identifies the component to use, a unique name or id for the endpoint, and a set of parameters to customize the endpoint behavior. Here is an example of an FTP consumer endpoint definition: from( "ftp://foo@myserver?password=secret& recursive=true& ftpClient.dataTimeout=30000& ftpClientConfig.serverLanguageCode=fr" ) .to( "bean:doSomething" ); There are several drawbacks with such constructs : no type safety, bad readability and no simple completion. So we now use the meta model, which is currently extracted from the source using an annotation processor and written in various JSON files, to generate a fluent DSL for each endpoint.  The same...
Read more

ActiveMQ Pooling

Over the past weeks, I spend some times load testing ServiceMix and ActiveMQ . I discovered two things: * ActiveMQ broker is currently single threaded for a given JMS connection. The main effect is that if you send messages from several threads on the same connection, all threads will be processing sequentially (well, not exactly, but they will all be processed by a single thread on the broker side). * ActiveMQ Resource Adapter does not pool sessions and producers: this means that sending a single message with Jencks using the JMS best practices in a J2EE environment (create a connection, create a session, create a producer, send, close all) will take three consecutive roundtrips to the JMS broker and is very CPU intensive for the broker (at least, when using JMX). The first problem is mainly apparent when using persistent messages and there are a few things than can be used to speed up things (see the LogicBlaze tuning guide for ActiveMQ). However these tuning tweaks are no...
Read more