[moe]

Thanks, that's much more informative!

I'm looking forward to the full suite being released so we can repeat the tests and see how it fares under real-world conditions with different message-sizes etc.

Sorry for the snark in my initial comment but I found this gist really lacking (akin to those press releases where $vendor brags about some arbitrary figure without providing any details).

I do like the simplicity of NATS and look forward to a fast server implementing it. However for something like a MQ where performance is the key-metric and highly dependent on the chosen workload one really shouldn't throw around numbers without backing them up thoroughly - that only hurts credibility.

Please take the write-ups by the RabbitMQ guys as a guide, who publish the source-code for all their benchmarks and go to great lengths explaining them:

http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/04/25/rabbitmq-performance...