activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ thoughts
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:16:29 GMT

On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:33 PM, James Mansion wrote:

> Hellweek wrote:
>> When performing the test with C# consumers the  CPP producers fail.
>> The CPP consumers do not fail with C# producers.
> Perhaps the server should send one flow control message and require  
> that the client
> ACK it specifically before sending another, to avoid spamming  
> clients that don't
> understand the optional facility.
Well, we don't spam clients who don't understand flow control
> The original poster suggested that there were problems with the  
> broker as well:
> 1. ... a slow client can bring the producer down and in some cases  
> can bring the broker down. A miss-behaved producer or client should  
> never ever take the broker down
> 2. A Producer that producers more then 200 messages per sec locks up  
> the Broker when the Broker has only one client connected.
> (me: 200/sec??? That' doesn't seem much to me, unless they are very  
> large indeed.  One should look to saturate GBit ethernet on a  
> smallish box and scale up to use a big slug of 10GBit too.  Like  
> this 
> lbm.php (OK, that might be a bit specialised).  Or
ActiveMQ performance is extremely good - its also been in the field  
along time so its capable of handling a lot of edge cases.
> Much of the post was about symptoms which suggest a buggy producer  
> implementation: but is it really as simple as that?
I think so - as the Java client works as expected.

> James


Rob -Enterprise Open Integration

View raw message