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 rajdavies@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.209 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=qBbKIURm5ld6t5e3xsPesPkJPCP0MPehFcPm+bnOgsb8xpx0OlK1T2zMZuITjv9/jd
         tg2rXFdoJ38nT3756BPVZsPegBagXHHEIvjYItZ7UVJTAttxWWpLNpP343UKtmIgC/Jw
         /9sVKvF3OO5xTbu/Go8ZThYYoNfGtPHFoUgtY=
Message-Id: <9B7D3F02-5B12-4DD5-8013-CE1FB02BFE03@gmail.com>
From: Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <27234416.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: Poor design, poor performance.  Better design,
 better performance?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:40:01 +0000
References: <27168341.post@talk.nabble.com> <27234416.post@talk.nabble.com>

Hey - that's great to hear!

On 19 Jan 2010, at 23:13, jongraf wrote:

>
> Our load tests have completed and I am proud to report that reading  
> the
> documentation, educating the entire technical team and documenting the
> various ActiveMQ settings in our properties files has led to a  
> significant
> performance increase.
>
> Our web app hit 1750 hits per second with 1,000 virtual users.  This  
> is way
> better than what we were getting with embedded brokers in each JVM  
> with
> consumers talking to each other via REST.
>
> Lessons: simple architecture, less layers and reading, reading,  
> reading.
> READ!
>
> Read the various enterprise integration patterns and pick one that  
> suits
> your needs.
> In my case: http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/Message.html
>
> Learn about the various ActiveMQ Topologies:
> http://activemq.apache.org/topologies.html
> (this should probably be the first page of the documentation)
>
> Many of the Spring examples show the Producer beans and the Consumer  
> beans
> in the same Spring XML.  In a client-server topology, this is a highly
> unlikely scenario.  Your producer and consumer will live in  
> separate .war
> distributions.
>
>
> jongraf wrote:
>>
>>
>> Proposed design:
>> * client-server topology with standalone broker
>> * non-persistent messaging
>> * producer client sends to queue, consumer client on remote machine
>> listens to queue
>>
>> Does my thought process make sense?  I am not necessarily looking to
>> increase the number of messages sent through the queue, but to  
>> allow my
>> application to have better response times.
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Poor-design%2C-poor-performance.--Better-design%2C-better-performance--tp27168341p27234416.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

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/