activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Overhead between network of brokers and direct TCP socket connection
Date Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:24:13 GMT
A network connection will be fine in this case. If you have very
dynamic producers and consumers, you may find that advisory messages
propagated across the network use too much bandwidth.
If this is the case, it is possible to specify a static route with
statically included destinations and disable advisory support on the
broker. This will keep traffic on the network connector to a minimum,
just occasional keep alive packets when the connection is idle.


On 13 July 2010 03:22, Romain CHANU <romainchanu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am facing an interesting case study.
>
> I have 2 systems in different geographical locations with a limited
> bandwidth:
>
> From primary system (A) to secondary system (B): 64 kbps uplink
> From secondary system (B) to primary system (A): 512 kbps uplink
>
> Systems A and B are in different subnets and we use a router between the two
> systems.
>
> Each system is composed of a few servers communicating internally with
> ActiveMQ.
>
> We are looking right now at the communication between each system. We could
> use ActiveMQ to form a network of brokers between the two systems, and send
> information through it.
>
> My guess, i may be wrong, is that ActiveMQ will send over some information
> to maintain the connection for the network of brokers.
>
> 1) Does anyone has an idea of the bandwidth consumption in this case?
>
> 2) Would you recommend to use a network of brokers or a direct TCP socket
> connection in such situation?
>
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Romain.
>



-- 
http://blog.garytully.com

Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com

Mime
View raw message