Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <8285282.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:16:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Abdul Alhazred <tharter@tradedesksoftware.com>
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: High Volume of messages
In-Reply-To: <ec6e67fd0701110636l498645e5h2ba6e550589126d6@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8225745.post@talk.nabble.com> <8237114.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <ec6e67fd0701110636l498645e5h2ba6e550589126d6@mail.gmail.com>


Interesting, so what about using a multicast transport with a network of
brokers? If all the brokers can see the multicast then they shouldn't need
store and forward at all. 


James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> Agreed. We've also got the fanout transport (hopefully being souped up
> into the Jedi transport some day - John? :), which will allow a JMS
> client to in parallel send a message to multiple brokers which can
> help reduce latency and provides an alternative with topics to using
> broker store & forward networks.
> 
> 
> On 1/9/07, Abdul Alhazred <tharter@tradedesksoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, with clustering you don't have to do anything special at the client.
>> Basically the brokers will forward messages as necessary to reach
>> whichever
>> consumers need to get them. So if Producer A is on broker 1 and sends a
>> message destined for Consumer B connected on broker 2, the message will
>> go
>> from A to 1 to 2 to B.
>>
>> That being said the topology of your network is going to determine the
>> amount of work going on. If every message has to go to consumers at all 3
>> brokers, then your brokers will pretty much be doing equal amounts of
>> work,
>> all of them will have to receive each message once and deliver it again
>> at
>> least one time. So it is possible such a network of brokers might not
>> perform much differently than 1 broker alone. OTOH some actions are
>> expensive, like persisting messages or using synchronous delivery.
>> Broker-broker communications can generally use the most efficient
>> mechanisms, so again it depends on exactly who uses what how.
>>
>> Benchmark. Nothing but a real test of a system is a solid answer to
>> performance questions. Run tests with one and with 3 and see what
>> happens.
>>
>>
>> shital wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi !!!
>> >
>> > I have an extremely high volume of messages. Several thousands of
>> messages
>> > per second. It does not care for message drops, and we use async
>> dispatch
>> > to get maximum performance. Now my confusion is that if I use 3 brokers
>> to
>> > make a network, and use failover protocol, will the producer have to
>> worry
>> > about making sure that messages are transferred to all 3 brokers in the
>> > cluster? Also since such a high volume of messages is transferred
>> across 3
>> > brokers, would it slow down the whole consumer/producer chain ??
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/High-Volume-of-messages-tf2941814.html#a8237114
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Volume-of-messages-tf2941814.html#a8285282
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.