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 lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <28173978.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: mattcodes <matt@mattfreeman.co.uk>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Relationship between Producer, Session and Connection.
In-Reply-To: <x2n7b3355cb1004070732o8bf0c0bbuf1f11b8e467593a9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <28163471.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <x2n7b3355cb1004070732o8bf0c0bbuf1f11b8e467593a9@mail.gmail.com>


When you say overhead are you talking about ongoing on startup, I was
thinking of initializing the pool on startup, so bring up minsize of pools
say 30 producer(1:1)session(1:1)connection, so when requested its all ready
to go, use it, and release it back to the pool for the next incoming web
request that has to send a message to the backend queue.

If I go the route of having 1 connection, how many session would you have
per connection? I guess start with the connection as singelton, then a pool
of sessions? Eventually scale it to connection per 20 sessions? Or somethin=
g
like that?

There could be quite a few concurrent users that will push the demand on th=
e
activemq parts up


bsnyder wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:12 AM, mattcodes <matt@mattfreeman.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In a (ASP.Net/c#) web-app I want to pump messages to an ActiveMQ queue
>> (nothing complicated - no native transactions etc..). Reading various
>> FAQs
>> etc.. I figure I should create a pool of say 50 message producers, each
>> with
>> their own session and own connection for the best performance. i.e. a 1
>> to 1
>> relation between producer --> session and session --> connection. Is thi=
s
>> the optimal setup? When would this be problematic? =C2=A0Obviously Id ha=
ve to
>> implement the pooling myself since there's no ActiveMQ pool lib for .Net=
?
>>
>> Alternatively I thought about pooling Session (with 1to1 with connection=
)
>> and then creating the producer on each request? The overhead of this is
>> about 9ms I tested, which isnt that far off pulling from a pool,
>=20
> The problem with what you are proposing is that it won't scale very
> well. Creating connections, sessions and producers in a 1:1 ratio is
> inappropriate because the overhead of both is rather high. It's
> actually better to use one connection to create many sessions and only
> increasing the number of connections if it is deemed necessary. This
> is the model used by most JMS pooling connection factories and most
> messaging middleware works very well with this model.
>=20
> Here is an example of what I recommend to folks for sending messages:
>=20
> http://bsnyderblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/using-spring-jmstemplate-to-send-=
jms.html
>=20
> This example uses the Spring Framework to send JMS messages. Let me
> know if you have any questions.
>=20
> Bruce
> --=20
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=3D6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>=20
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>=20
>=20

--=20
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Relationship-between-Pr=
oducer%2C-Session-and-Connection.-tp28163471p28173978.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.