Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of christian.posta@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1378291779553-4671148.post@n4.nabble.com>
References: <1377857161040-4670977.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAKS7T5MHVBw1=FcPtDDUNdyn2dj53Cn69_82gEAfV5eX=qxxHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1378283116908-4671129.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<1378291779553-4671148.post@n4.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:25:08 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAKS7T5P__tCMBV-7=qjRxeWTP7zF=p2GxOHKAk58muueaUYPyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NIO transport performance for ActiveMQ
From: Christian Posta <christian.posta@gmail.com>
To: "users@activemq.apache.org" <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33fe6941d0504e59570c0

--001a11c33fe6941d0504e59570c0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Yes, using the NIO transport vs regular blocking TCP will reduce the number
of threads required per connection over large numbers of connections. I
don't think you'll see much benefit with just one or two connections.

If you have a case where you have lots of connections, and you don't see a
difference between using regular TCP blocking transport, then please post
the thread trace (pastebin).


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:49 AM, anujkhandelwal <anujmnitjpr@gmail.com>wrote:

> Exactly !! Throughput is not the major concern but NIO is supposed to
> decrease no. of threads because it is the main functionality of NIO. Can
> someone from ActiveMQ team help me with this.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Anuj
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/NIO-transport-performance-for-ActiveMQ-tp4670977p4671148.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


-- 
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta

--001a11c33fe6941d0504e59570c0--