I use�basic_consume and basic_ack<div><br></div><div>Suhail<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Gavin M. Roy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gmr@myyearbook.com">gmr@myyearbook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:44 PM, tsuraan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tsuraan@gmail.com" target="_blank">tsuraan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Out of curiosity, are you using basic_get, or basic_consume? �I've<br>
found that basic_get has performance like that, whereas basic_consume<br>
is at least 10x faster. �I'm also using persistent messages with<br>
explicit ack (in transactional mode), and using Barry's python library<br>
I get in the 1k - 10k messages/second range on hardware that isn't any<br>
better than yours.</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I have to second this sentiment about basic_consume vs basic_get. �The performance of basic_get is terrible to be honest, it also does not scale across multiple consumers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Gavin�</div></font></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://mixpanel.com">http://mixpanel.com</a><br>Blog: <a href="http://blog.mixpanel.com">http://blog.mixpanel.com</a><br>
</div>