Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of andresr@corp.moniker.com
 designates 66.232.8.193 as permitted sender)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA0A45.55C29208"
Subject: Replye-Request pattern performance 
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:51:42 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <886461EE661A1E45BAA97AF28FAA85DB01C498B9@barbados.corp.oversee.net>
Thread-Topic: Replye-Request pattern performance 
Thread-Index: AcoKRQ0X5ah4oAiDQt6KJcPPtg9csw==
From: "Andres Rangel" <andresr@corp.moniker.com>
To: <users@activemq.apache.org>

------_=_NextPart_001_01CA0A45.55C29208
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

We have our own implementation of a request-reply message.

=20

We have a pool of generic clients that each is listening to it's own
temporary queue and all write to a common queue. These connections are
open at creation time. They remain open until they get evicted by the
pool manager.

=20

We have different applications that use this pool, and the size of the
pool is between 200-500 ,so  we may have 2500 clients connected (each
one with it's own temporary queue).

=20

My question is: What is the performance penalty of using temporary
queues?=20

Should I consider using one single queue for the receiving of the
messages, and dispatch it using correlation Id?

Will this improve the performance on my system?

=20

I would like to hear your thought

=20

=20

Thanks

=20

--

Andres Rangel


------_=_NextPart_001_01CA0A45.55C29208--