Performance Modeling and Benchmarking of Event-Based ... - DVS
Performance Modeling and Benchmarking of Event-Based ... - DVS
Performance Modeling and Benchmarking of Event-Based ... - DVS
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
110 CHAPTER 5. BENCHMARKING OF EVENT-BASED SYSTEMS<br />
CPU Utilization<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20<br />
# Queues<br />
Exp. 1<br />
Exp. 2<br />
Message Throughput (Msg/sec)<br />
25000<br />
20000<br />
15000<br />
10000<br />
5000<br />
0<br />
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20<br />
# Queues<br />
Exp. 1<br />
Exp. 2<br />
CPU Time Per Msg (ms)<br />
1<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.4<br />
0.2<br />
0<br />
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20<br />
# Queues<br />
Exp. 1<br />
Exp. 2<br />
CPU Time Per KByte Payload (ms)<br />
1<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.4<br />
0.2<br />
0<br />
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20<br />
# Queues<br />
Exp. 1<br />
Exp. 2<br />
Figure 5.29: Scenarios 1 <strong>and</strong> 2: NPNT vs.<br />
Queues<br />
PT P2P Messaging with Increasing Number <strong>of</strong><br />
5.2.6 Conclusions <strong>of</strong> the SPECjms2007 Case Study<br />
In this section, we presented a case study <strong>of</strong> a leading JMS platform, the WebLogic server, conducting<br />
an in-depth performance analysis <strong>of</strong> the platform under a number <strong>of</strong> different workload<br />
<strong>and</strong> configuration scenarios. We evaluated the server performance for both the point-to-point<br />
<strong>and</strong> publish/subscribe messaging domains studying the effect <strong>of</strong> individual workload characteristics<br />
on the server CPU utilization, the message throughput, the CPU processing time per<br />
message/KByte payload, the message delivery latency, etc. Two groups <strong>of</strong> scenarios were tested.<br />
The first group uses complex workloads based on the st<strong>and</strong>ard horizontal <strong>and</strong> vertical topologies<br />
provided by the benchmark. The second group includes scenarios that focus on specific aspects<br />
<strong>and</strong> features <strong>of</strong> MOM, e.g the overhead <strong>of</strong> persisting messages, the influence <strong>of</strong> the message size,<br />
the effect <strong>of</strong> increasing the number <strong>of</strong> message producers/consumers <strong>and</strong> the maximum throughput<br />
that can be processed through a given number <strong>of</strong> queues. In most cases, the system scaled<br />
in a linear fashion <strong>and</strong> did not exhibit any unexpected behavior. Interesting observations are the<br />
relation between the number <strong>of</strong> the producer threads <strong>and</strong> message throughput, the number <strong>of</strong><br />
topic consumers <strong>and</strong> CPU load, <strong>and</strong> the influence <strong>of</strong> pub/sub <strong>and</strong> P2P messaging in the vertical<br />
scenario.<br />
5.3 jms2009-PS - A Publish /Subscribe Benchmark<br />
While SPECjms2007 includes some limited publish/subscribe communication as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
workload, the focus <strong>of</strong> the benchmark is on point-to-point communication via queues which<br />
dominate the overall system workload. Moreover, the SPECjms2007 workload implementation