WHITE PAPER
Driving the Future of Connected Cars with MQTT →

Open MQTT Benchmarking Comparison: EMQX vs VerneMQ

May Jin
Apr 25, 2023
Open MQTT Benchmarking Comparison: EMQX vs VerneMQ

The blog post Open MQTT Benchmark Suite: The Ultimate Guide to MQTT Performance Testing introduced the Open MQTT Benchmark Suite developed by EMQ. We defined MQTT benchmark scenarios, use cases, and observation metrics in the GitHub project. Based on the activity and popularity of the community and GitHub project, the top 4 open-source MQTT brokers in 2023 – EMQX, Mosquitto, NanoMQ, and Vernemq, were chosen to perform the benchmark test.

This blog series presents the benchmark test results and aims to help you choose a suitable MQTT broker based on your needs and use cases.

This is the last post of the blog series, which provides the benchmarking results of EMQX and VerneMQ. Additionally, we compare the features and capabilities of both brokers in detail in another post.

MQTT Benchmark Scenarios and Use Cases

The MQTT Benchmark Suite designs two sets of benchmark use cases. One is named Basic Set, which is for small-scale performance verification, and another is called Enterprise Set, which aims for enterprise level verification.

Detailed descriptions of the testing scenarios are already available on the GitHub project , for convenience we briefly list them here as well.

All the tests are executed on a single node.

Use Cases

Basic Set

  • Point-to-Point: p2p-1K-1K-1K-1K
    • 1k publishers, 1k subscribers, 1k topics
    • Each publisher pubs 1 message per second
    • QoS 1, payload 16B
  • Fan-out: fanout-1-1k-1-1K
    • 1 publisher, 1 topic, 1000 subscribers
    • 1 publisher pubs 1 message per second
    • QoS 1, payload 16B
  • Fan-in: sharedsub-1K-5-1K-1K
    • 1k publishers, 1k pub topics
    • 5 subscribers consume all messages in a shared subscription way
    • Publish rate: 1k/s (each publisher pubs a message per second)
    • Shared subscription’s topic: $share/perf/test/#
    • Publish topics: test/$clientid
    • QoS 1, payload 16B
  • Concurrent connections: conn-tcp-10k-100
    • 10k connections
    • Connection rate (cps): 100/s

Enterprise Set

  • Point-to-Point: p2p-50K-50K-50K-50K
    • 50k publishers, 50k subscribers, 50k topics
    • Each publisher pubs 1 message per second
    • QoS 1, payload 16B
  • Fan-out: fanout-5-1000-5-250K
    • 5 publishers, 5 topics, 1000 subscribers (each sub to all topics)
    • Publish rate: 250/s, so sub rate = 250*1000 = 250k/s
    • QoS 1, payload 16B
  • Fan-in: sharedsub-50K-500-50K-50K
    • 50k publishers, 50k pub topics
    • Publish rate: 50k/s (each publisher pubs a message per second)
    • Use a shared subscription to consume data (to avoid slow consumption by subscribers affecting broker performance, 500 subscribers are used to share the subscription)
    • Shared subscription’s topic: $share/perf/test/#
    • Publish topics: test/$clientid
    • QoS 1, payload 16B
  • Concurrent connections: conn-tcp-1M-5K
    • 1M connections
    • Connection rate (cps): 5000/s

Common MQTT Config

Config Value
keep alive 300s
clean session true
authentication enablement no
TLS authentication enablement no
test duration 30 minutes

Testbed

The test environment is configured on AWS, and all virtual machines are within a VPC (virtual private cloud) subnet.

Broker Machine Details

  • Public cloud: AWS
  • Instance type: c5.4xlarge 16C32G
  • OS: Ubuntu 22.04.1 amd64

Test Tool

XMeter is used in this benchmark test to simulate various business scenarios. XMeter is built on top of JMeter but with enhanced scalability and more capabilities. It provides comprehensive and real-time test reports during the test. Additionally, its built-in monitoring tools are used to track the resource usage of the EMQX/Mosquitto server, enabling a comparison with the information provided by the operating systems.

XMeter provides a private deployment version (on-premise) and a public cloud SaaS version. A private XMeter is deployed in the same VPC as the MQTT broker server in this testing.

XMeter

SW Version

Broker Version
EMQX 4.4.16
VerneMQ 1.12.6.2
XMeter 3.2.4

Benchmarking Results

Basic Set

point-to-point: 1K:1K

Average pub-to-sub latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Avg memory used
EMQX 0.27 4% 2% 510M 495M
VerneMQ 0.33 0.4 10% 6% 1.3G

Fan-out 1k QoS 1

Average pub-to-sub latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Avg memory used
EMQX 3 2% 1% 475M 460M
VerneMQ 21.55 4% 2% 1.2G 1.1G

Fan-in 1k - shared subscription QoS 1

Average pub-to-sub latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Avg memory used
EMQX 0.19 3% 2% 468M 460M
VerneMQ 0.34 6% 5% 1.3G 1.2G

10K connections cps 100

Average latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Memory used Stable at
EMQX 0.74 2% 1% 540M 510M
VerneMQ 0.89 3% 0% 1.1G 1.0G

Enterprise Set

point-to-point: p2p-50K-50K-50K-50K

Metrics

Actual msg rate Average pub-to-sub latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Avg memory used
EMQX 50k:50k 1.58 88% 80% 5.71G 5.02G
VerneMQ 50k:50k 2136.62 91% 90% 6.30G 6.02G

EMQX keeps the stable pub & sub rate at 50000/s during the 30-minute's test. VerneMQ is able to handle the target 50k message incoming and outgoing throughput, but the latency was quite high.

pub-to-sub latency percentiles

image.png

Latency (ms) EMQX VerneMQ
p50 1 467
p75 1 2,937
p90 2 6,551
p95 4 9,517
p99 18 16,500

Result Charts

  • EMQX

    EMQX Result Charts

  • VerneMQ

    VerneMQ Result Charts

Fan-out: fanout-5-1000-5-250K

Metrics

Actual msg rate Average pub-to-sub latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Avg memory used
EMQX 250k 1.99 73% 71% 530M 483M
VerneMQ 82k 11,802.11 93% 92% 3.01G 2.94G

In this scenario, Verne cannot reach to the target message rate. The throughput has been fluctuating around 82,000/s.

EMQX keeps the stable rate at 250,000+/s throughout the test.

pub-to-sub latency percentiles

pub-to-sub latency percentiles

Latency (ms) EMQX VerneMQ
p50 2 11,966
p75 2 12,551
p90 3 13,060
p95 3 13,357
p99 4 13,884

Result Charts

  • EMQX

    EMQX Result Charts

  • VerneMQ

    VerneMQ Result Charts

Fan-in: sharedsub-50K-500-50K-50K

Metrics

Actual msg rate Average pub-to-sub latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Avg memory used
EMQX pub: 50k
sub: 50k
1.47 94% 93% 8.19G 6.67G
VerneMQ pub: 7.6k
sub: 3.5k
116,888.61 83% 74% 12.16G 8.38G

pub-to-sub latency percentiles

pub-to-sub latency percentiles

Latency (ms) EMQX VerneMQ
p50 1 128,251
p75 1 132,047
p90 2 135,239
p95 2 137,106
p99 19 140,528

Result Charts

  • EMQX

    EMQX Result Charts

  • VermeMQ

    VerneMQ Result Charts

Concurrent connections: conn-tcp-1M-5K

Metrics

Average latency (ms) Max CPU user+system Avg CPU user+system Max memory used Memory used Stable at
EMQX 2.4 35% 22% 10.77G 8.68G
VerneMQ 2.47 44% 25% 22.4G not stable

During a 30-minute’s test for VerneMQ, the memory used keeps increasing. It rose from 18GB when 1 million connections were completed to 22.4GB at the end of the test.

Latency percentiles

Latency percentiles

Latency (ms) ENQX VerneMQ
p50 2 2
p75 2 2
p90 2 2
p95 2 3
p99 3 3

Result Charts

  • EMQX

    EMQX Result Charts

  • VerneMQ

    VerneMQ Result Charts

Conclusion

EMQX and VerneMQ have similar performance for the basic test cases. In the enterprise level testing, EMQX outperformed VerneMQ across all scenarios. As stated in another post, EMQX is one of the best choices for deploying MQTT brokers in production in 2023.

Try EMQX Enterprise for Free
Connect any device, at any scale, anywhere.
Get Started →

Related Posts