From users-return-26424-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org Tue Jan 11 19:52:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 2019 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2011 19:52:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jan 2011 19:52:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 14473 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2011 19:52:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 14439 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2011 19:52:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 14431 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jan 2011 19:52:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:52:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.3 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [69.147.107.20] (HELO mrout1-b.corp.re1.yahoo.com) (69.147.107.20) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:52:24 +0000 Received: from SP2-EX07CAS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com (sp2-ex07cas02.corp.sp2.yahoo.com [98.137.59.38]) by mrout1-b.corp.re1.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/y.out) with ESMTP id p0BJpGvc003240 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:51:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from SP2-EX07VS06.ds.corp.yahoo.com ([98.137.59.24]) by SP2-EX07CAS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com ([98.137.59.38]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:51:16 -0800 From: Anirudha Khanna To: "users@activemq.apache.org" Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:51:14 -0800 Subject: asyncSend for producers in persistent mode Thread-Topic: asyncSend for producers in persistent mode Thread-Index: AcuxyOcpWR8AQY50QkmoZIbhn6yYIg== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C951F4B22830Fanirudhayahooinccom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --_000_C951F4B22830Fanirudhayahooinccom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, When sending messages using persistent mode and useAsyncSend=3Dtrue, I noti= ced that the producer throughput is roughly 10x more as compared to when us= eAsyncSend=3Dfalse. What I am trying to understand is whether it is safe to= use this option if we want to guarantee that all the messages that a produ= cer sends will be received by the broker. (using TCP as transport) Are ther= e any caveats to using this option? Will the broker be able to notify the c= lient say if it was unable to persist the message(s) to the message store? Thanks, Anirudha --_000_C951F4B22830Fanirudhayahooinccom_--