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 gary.tully@gmail.com designates
 74.125.83.43 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=EedpWHUaAjslRqMBba2yzkbSRfZgCy5xXh7jq1BHl3TJjtogJ9aUuvof/fXr/OL9S9
         AzIaQDo9fAlc/+a6+rtjMp0T4givuIuj177HU6z6Ji7nZwwT0jMmLNwCbs5vpTMcRzl+
         bT5XNI1ZdX5s87WsKd2n5eE1ifAC9VArcjHfo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28841199.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <28841199.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:38:46 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikhgS8sufRQ9f-FFg04grsHqZxXi2AxBtaJR8PB@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: activeMQ broker for our useCases
From: Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175113b29260110488c06b25

--0015175113b29260110488c06b25
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Look at the slow consumer handling policies to deal with messages
accumulation.
http://activemq.apache.org/slow-consumer-handling.html

On 10 June 2010 11:18, radha_mit <RadhakrishnanD@ivycomptech.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> We want to have a messaing system, which has the following needs
>        . persistent messages at about 300 / sec  and
>          non persistent messages at about 2000 / sec.
>
> The broker must run for 30-40 days without any hiccups and no message loss
> must be there.
>
>
> in the tests we conducted, we found that activeMQ supports all these things
> except long running in case of persistent messages.
> We used AMQpersistence store as the persistent store and activeMQ 5.3.0 was
> used.
>
> Our persistent use case is this :  one producer publishing messages to a
> topic and 9-10 subscribers subscribing to it.
>
> We ran this scenario and activeMQ slowed down after 30 hrs.we killed the
> broker.
>
> however, during the middle of the run, i killed one consumer by mistake.
> however, messages meant for that consumer were pending in the disk and at
> the time of killing the broker, the pending messages were nearly 5 GB. is
> it
> because of this the broker slowed down ?
>
> With respect to non persistent messages, the broker was fine even after 3
> days of running and we stopped the broker.
>
>
> Can you tell us whether the broker going slow is expected or is it because
> of the size piling on the disk ?
> Also, can you tell us what topology will be the best in implementing this ?
> ( we want to use network of brokers since it is faster than the JDBC one )
> .
> Should we have separate broker for persistent messaging and non persistent
> messaging ?
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/activeMQ-broker-for-our-useCases-tp28841199p28841199.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
http://blog.garytully.com

Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com

--0015175113b29260110488c06b25--