Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 92697 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2007 07:11:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Aug 2007 07:11:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 21955 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2007 07:11:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 21920 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2007 07:11:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 21911 invoked by uid 99); 7 Aug 2007 07:11:23 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:11:23 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com designates 66.249.82.228 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.82.228] (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.228) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:11:20 +0000 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so1734748wxd for ; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:10:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=jPp+omBojJL2+gr2fxDZSMCpbIYPocm6Yiq31F7LUEOzf7MxzaruhPhDEVwdXz8NeD4ZNb5pek+dzbQQ/g23GTaFAa4LB+jA5y9EPwfru1gbANbm6AsbHw9TooaXuaUgud8Avn9aSl1W+HZ6mBkNnJTGwRlUUjY/8yd4GxNmnvs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CpO3bMRLun/7jhE3pomOEfeA05TbG5zVxm6bfpH/Ov8JA77kye/gNohemrZKBKnjI7HNwv04EFaN+BbNJkIbU5pFxoPfRyz4r7c6/EFKmRM5jWHyhMD6powhIh/nEsSsqKaVzPiPdGq2Cc/IJEzzwVIImV1weqW5m0L/XpUZ394= Received: by 10.90.104.14 with SMTP id b14mr5523214agc.1186470659606; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.67.18 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:10:59 +0100 From: "James Strachan" To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Priority vs Exclusive In-Reply-To: <12016222.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <12016222.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 8/6/07, Elber wrote: > > Hi, > > I've done some tests of consumer priority and exclusive and I found that if > I start 2 consumers on the same queue (the first with a priority = 2 and the > second =1), the first will consume all messages. > It's the same thing whit consumer.exclusive. > So what's the difference between the 2. You can have multiple consumers with the same priority sharing messages. With exclusive consumer, you can only ever have a single consumer, period - irrespective of priorities. > I've read the doc and it explained that priority is used to avoid network > Hops, it can't be used to allow to one consumer to consume 80% of messages > and 20% for the other? No - to split message consumption across multiple consumers, the current flow control & prefetch logic deals with letting faster consumers consume more of the messages -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/