IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i18p5817-d635392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stress-Testing MQTT Brokers: A Comparative Analysis of Performance Measurements

Author

Listed:
  • Biswajeeban Mishra

    (Department of Software Engineering, University of Szeged, 6720 Szeged, Hungary
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Biswaranjan Mishra

    (Wind River Systems International, 19/1, Vittal Mallya Road, 1st Floor, Bengaluru 560001, India)

  • Attila Kertesz

    (Department of Software Engineering, University of Szeged, 6720 Szeged, Hungary
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Presently, Internet of Things (IoT) protocols are at the heart of Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication. Irrespective of the radio technologies used for deploying an IoT/M2M network, all independent data generated by IoT devices (sensors and actuators) rely heavily on the special messaging protocols used for M2M communication in IoT applications. As the demand for IoT services is growing, the need for reduced power consumption of IoT devices and services is also growing to ensure a sustainable environment for future generations. The Message-Queuing Telemetry Transport or in short MQTT is a widely used IoT protocol. It is a low-resource-consuming messaging solution based on the publish–subscribe type communication model. This paper aims to assess the performance of several MQTT broker implementations (also known as MQTT servers) using stress testing, and to analyze their relationship with system design. The evaluation of the brokers is performed by a realistic test scenario, and the analysis of the test results is done with three different metrics: CPU usage, latency, and message rate. As the main contribution of this work, we analyzed six MQTT brokers (Mosquitto, Active-MQ, Hivemq, Bevywise, VerneMQ, and EMQ X) in detail, and classified them using their main properties. Our results showed that Mosquitto outperforms the other considered solutions in most metrics; however, ActiveMQ is the best performing one in terms of scalability due to its multi-threaded implementation, while Bevywise has promising results for resource-constrained scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Biswajeeban Mishra & Biswaranjan Mishra & Attila Kertesz, 2021. "Stress-Testing MQTT Brokers: A Comparative Analysis of Performance Measurements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:18:p:5817-:d:635392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/18/5817/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/18/5817/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cristian D’Ortona & Daniele Tarchi & Carla Raffaelli, 2022. "Open-Source MQTT-Based End-to-End IoT System for Smart City Scenarios," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Georgios S. Dimitrakakis & Konstantinos G. Georgakas & Evangelos S. Topalis & Panagis N. Vovos, 2024. "Grid Quality Services from Smart Boilers: Experimental Verification on Realistic Scenarios for Micro-Grids with Demand-Side Management Oriented to Self-Consumption," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-30, April.
    3. Dimitrios Lymperis & Christos Goumopoulos, 2023. "SEDIA: A Platform for Semantically Enriched IoT Data Integration and Development of Smart City Applications," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-38, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:18:p:5817-:d:635392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.