activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andres Rangel" <andr...@corp.moniker.com>
Subject RE: Best implementation for reply-request
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:48:03 GMT
I am planning to move to 5.3 this week.
We are not experiencing some time outs and messages lost on the systems
(the messages have an expiration time).

I just was wondering if the cause was a slow consumer or the system
itself.

For some of these lost messages, the message doesn't get to the
consumer.







-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Davies [mailto:rajdavies@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:24 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Best implementation for reply-request

there could well be an improvement using nio. Also - it it possible to  
move to version 5.3 - which is generally a lot more stable.
Btw - you didn't mention if you were having performance problems ?

cheers,

Rob
On 25 Nov 2009, at 19:55, Andres Rangel wrote:

> Bruce thanks for your reply.
> The consumers create the temporary queue only once, and they are  
> cached in a pool for subsequent usage.
> We are using tcp connection. If we move to nio connection, will  
> there be any noticeable improvement?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Snyder [mailto:bruce.snyder@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:45 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Best implementation for reply-request
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Andres Rangel
> <andresr@corp.moniker.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have currently running apache activemq 5.2 in a network of brokers
>>
>>
>>
>> It has close to 1500 producers and 1200 consumers.
>>
>> This producers have  each one a temporary queue so that will be 1500
>> temp queues in the system.
>>
>>
>>
>> The reply-request is implemented using temporary queues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to know if there's a performance hit by using temporary
>> queues instead of using another option.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>
> There's more overhead involved with such constant creation/destruction
> of temp queues, but that's it. As long as the broker has been tuned to
> scale for handling such a large number of destinations, then you
> should be OK:
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/scaling-queues.html
>
> Bruce
> -- 
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\! 
> G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Rob Davies
http://twitter.com/rajdavies
I work here: http://fusesource.com
My Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
I'm writing this: http://www.manning.com/snyder/






Mime
View raw message