activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com>
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 http://www.29west.com/products/lbm/messaging-performance- 
> lbm.php (OK, that might be a bit specialised).  Or http://www.openamq.org/performance.html.)
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
>

cheers,

Rob

http://open.iona.com/ -Enterprise Open Integration
http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/




Mime
View raw message