Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <16207231.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Kelley <mkmail-apache@rearden.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Optimising PrefetchSubscription.dispatchPending() ideas
In-Reply-To: <47B3B0C4.4070004@nuix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <47AC8D46.7060009@nuix.com>
 <D73B1E49-BDAD-4186-B8C6-14F8E465776E@gmail.com> <47B13E2C.8060602@nuix.com>
 <47B28C8C.70707@nuix.com> <AB85E5F9-22A6-4E1A-8DB8-C82745700BBD@gmail.com>
 <5a56ce1b0802131027x79dbdb8dx9fc9949028fe71f0@mail.gmail.com>
 <47B3B0C4.4070004@nuix.com>


Hi David,

I'm new to ActiveMQ and unfamiliar with the code (albeit w/experience in
JMS), so forgive me if this is a silly question: do the performance
issues/fixes discussed affect non-durable subscriptions (w/non-persistent
messages) as well?

Mike


David Sitsky-2 wrote:
> 
> Rob and I did some performance enhancements with queues so that a 
> Queue.send() call was decoupled from the dispatch processing.  In the 
> past, depending on the state of the consumers, a Queue.send() call could 
> take a significant amount of time.  We changed it so that a single 
> thread was responsible for dispatching messages, which avoided a lot of 
> lock contention.  It also meant a Queue.send() returned as quickly as 
> possible.
> 
> I imagine a similar change could be done for Topics, since from what I 
> can tell, a Topic.send() call currently does its dispatch processing in 
> the same call.
> 
> Cheers,
> David
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Optimising-PrefetchSubscription.dispatchPending%28%29-ideas-tp15359726s2354p16207231.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.