Re: [Quickfix-developers] Performance of QuickFix/J vs QuickFix (C++)

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Hi Robert,
  The latency values were in milliseconds. and the throughput is in
transactions / second.
And, regarding the test environment...
# of CPU's : 2  (Arch : x386)
Platform    : Solaris
JVM          : version 1.5.0_10 
Logging     : Using FileLogFactory... logs go to files...

Thanks,
Vikram

robparrott wrote:
> 
> QuickFIX Documentation:
> http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
> QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html
> 
> Also, for these number to be better interpreted, you'll need to be
> more specific about the number of CPUs, and settings and version of
> the JVM.  Also, what kind of logging are you using? What platform?
> 
> Otherwise it's hard to tell if you are testing QuickFIX or are seeing
> effects of garbage collecting and such in the JVM itself, or perhaps
> of File IO due to logging and persistence.
> 
> The very disparate values in the results, especially latency, say to
> me that you are hitting system performance bottlenecks, and not really
> testing QuickFIX/J at this point.
> 
> 
> On 2/4/07, Robert Parrott <rob...@gm...> wrote:
>> Hi Vikram, can you provide some units here? Are these microseconds?
>>
>> On 2/1/07, Vikram Venkatesan <rer...@ya...> wrote:
>> > QuickFIX Documentation:
>> http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
>> > QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >     I have done some performance tests for Quickfix/J 1.0.4. and got
>> some
>> > performance results. Please let me know whether the performance results
>> are
>> > acceptable, and are expected.
>> >
>> > Started Client1 (Trader) and Client2(CounterParty) on the same machine
>> > (Architecture : i386 / Memory : 4 GB ).
>> >
>> > 1.  Throughput testing
>> >     Description :  Placed 100,000 orders from Trader and got all the
>> orders
>> > filled by the Counterparty (i.e. received all execution reports). The
>> total
>> > time taken is noted, and the throughout is calculated(orders per
>> second) for
>> > 100,000 orders.
>> >
>> > Average throughput : 3600 transactions / second.
>> > (where transaction = sending order and receiving it's execution
>> report).
>> >
>> > 2. Ping pong mode of testing
>> >    Description : Placed 'N' orders from Trader. On receiving execution
>> > report for all the 'N' orders, the next 'N' orders are placed and so
>> > on...sort of BLOCKING order placement.
>> > Latency :
>> >           On receiving the execution report for the 'N' th order, the
>> time
>> > difference between the current time and the PLACING TIME of that order
>> is
>> > calculated and this is taken as the LATENCY for an order.
>> >
>> > Throuthput calculation:
>> >       The total time taken for 'N' orders to be filled is taken down.
>> From
>> > this the throughput is calculated.
>> >
>> > Batch size = The value of 'N'.
>> >
>> > # orders  Batch size  Min Latency  Max Latency  Avg latency Min
>> throughput
>> > Max throughput  Avg throughput
>> > 100000       1               1          1009              504            
>> 2
>> > 1000                  575
>> > 100000       2               1          1028              501           
>> 22
>> > 2000                  1728
>> > 100000       5               1          1009              501           
>> 90
>> > 5000                  3999
>> > 100000       10             1          1028             499              
>> 62
>> > 10000                4300
>> > 100000       100           9          1042             518              
>> 200
>> > 9090                 5126
>> > 100000       1000          28        1038             529              
>> 3058
>> > 6802                 5778
>> >
>> >
>> > - Vikram
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Performance-of-QuickFix-J-vs-QuickFix-%28C%2B%2B%29-tf3134559.html#a8746000
>> > Sent from the QuickFIX - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
>> security?
>> > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
>> easier.
>> > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
>> Geronimo
>> >
>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Quickfix-developers mailing list
>> > Qui...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>> >
>>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> easier.
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-of-QuickFix-J-vs-QuickFix-%28C%2B%2B%29-tf3134559.html#a8821178
Sent from the QuickFIX - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.