activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From javaxmlsoapdev <vika...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Message group bottleneck?
Date Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:10:11 GMT



James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> 
>>No - but they are assigned to a single consumer. The effect is kinda
>>like each consumer having its  own queue and all IBM messages being
>>put on the same consumer queue - but there really only is 1 queue.
> 
> Bit confused here. Did you mean if I use message groups there will be only
> ONE consumer but effect will be like having a seperate consumer queue for
> each symbol? I thought with the use of message groups activemq will use
> consumer from the consumer pool, one per each symbol? For e.g. If I am
> using message groups and have 15 symbols and consumer pooling size is 25
> then there will be 15 unique consumer queue handling unique symbol with
> the effect of message groups? can you please clarify.
> 
>>So if you want load balancing of messages for IBM, then don't use
>>message groups. The entire reason to use message groups is you want to
>>preserve message order of IBM messages - which means you must only
>>have 1 single consumer active at any moment in time to process IBM
>>messages (and so no load balancing for IBM messages).
> 
>>If you want to load balance across symbols (so that say each consumer
>>just processes 1 symbol) then just keep booting up consumers - the
>>more consumers there are the less symbols each consumer has to
>>process.
> 
>>The message group key (JMSXGroupID) is your way of specifying how
>>parallel to make the consumption of the messages - so to further
>>increase the parallelisation, you could try figure out how you can
>>further split up, say, IBM messages. e.g. use IBM_Exchange_Date to be
>>able to parallelise IBM symbols traded on different days on different
>>exchanges or whatever. But its your call on how much you care about
>>ordering on how much you want to parallelize
> 
> Ordering is a primary requirement so can't compromise on that. Can you
> adivse then what's the best way of load balancing with ordering?
> 
> -- 
> 
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Message-group-bottleneck--tf2412151.html#a6738512
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message