Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <10721096.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 08:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pravin Kundal <pravin_kundal@persistent.co.in>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: RE: Implementation of multithreading model on CMS ActiveMQ
In-Reply-To: 
 <7743F17344E95A4CA78A3E53A7AF496B0103A513@corpatsmail1.corp.sensis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <10718189.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <7743F17344E95A4CA78A3E53A7AF496B0103A511@corpatsmail1.corp.sensis.com>
 <10720173.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <7743F17344E95A4CA78A3E53A7AF496B0103A513@corpatsmail1.corp.sensis.com>


I couldn't access the link below. 

Is it the same example that Apache-ActiveMQ ship with the CMS library?

Thanks a lot.


Mittler, Nathan wrote:
> 
>  
>> 
>> In the case I will need to implement the concurrency control 
>> over the session, so that only one thread can use the 
>> session, as sessions are implemented for serial use? Rght?
> 
> Yes, you should add your own concurrency control for the session.
> 
>> 
>> I tried the first case in which i implemented the 
>> multithreading, each thread running its own session and each 
>> session having one producer. But the results were not even 
>> close to our requriment (result in msges/sec).
>> 
> 
> Were you using openwire or stomp as the protocol?  We have seen cases
> where small messages with openwire cause extra delay due to the naggle
> algorithm and that message footprints are smaller than their stomp
> counterpart.  If you're using openwire, I suggest you switch over to
> stomp and see if you have different results.  If that does the trick,
> our next release will allow a user-specified TCP-NODELAY socket option
> that should fix the problem for openwire (for small messages).
> 
>> Do you think the other case can give us the better results 
>> (i.e. "The ActiveMQ-CPP implementation, however, will allow 
>> you to share a session across threads.")
>> 
> 
> Without understanding your particular usage of the client, I would guess
> that a different usage wouldn't help much.  Just to make sure, however,
> you could slightly modify our example application
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/activemq-cpp/trunk/src/example
> s/main.cpp and see if you can get it to meet your requirements.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Nate
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Implementation-of-multithreading-model-on-CMS-ActiveMQ-tf3790047s2354.html#a10721096
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.