Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 216.139.236.26 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of dcheckoway@gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: dcheckoway <dcheckoway@gmail.com>
To: users@camel.apache.org
Message-ID: <BANLkTin6OD7WZcEsQLCb7rho5z4nb5f_Zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikE5FHSu8TAgEp0hpYRp95p2AVYOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1304667565989-4375238.post@n5.nabble.com>
 <BANLkTi=SR_i80Ghjobb5dj_djkL1D9CJsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTikE5FHSu8TAgEp0hpYRp95p2AVYOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: aggregate + split with JMS...possible?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_203_16584497.1304706734743"

------=_Part_203_16584497.1304706734743
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Claus, was that a slip of the tongue, suggesting that kestrel (written in
scala) scales better than ActiveMQ?  :-)

Thanks for the tips guys.  Scaling, that's no problem...I'm trying to avoid
$caling!  :-)  Trust me, we've tried everything with ActiveMQ to wring every
last ounce of performance out of it.  I think we're probably expecting it to
do more on each node than it currently is capable of doing.

Anyway, I appreciate the tip on the custom aggregation strategy...thanks!

Dan

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Claus Ibsen-2 [via Camel] <
ml-node+4376215-1286603417-4778@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tarun Ramakrishna <[hidden email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4376215&i=0&by-user=t>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems that all you want is buffering of messages and not true
> > logical aggregates right ? In which case you should simply configure
> > ActiveMQ appropriately to enable async sending (if you aren't using
> > transactions) and set an appropriate prefetch when consuming messages.
> > You can also see whether  optimizing the acknowledgement mode in
> > batches (setOptimizeAcknowledge) improves anything for you.  AMQ is
> > fine for sending high-frequency, small sized messages.
> >
>
> Yep it sure is. It can scala very high.
>
> I recommend to pickup the Active in Action book.
> http://manning.com/snyder
>
> And checkout some of the ActiveMQ webinars
> http://fusesource.com/resources/video-archived-webinars/
>
>
> > Best Regards,
> > Tarun
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: [hidden email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4376215&i=1&by-user=t>
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> CamelOne 2011: http://fusesource.com/camelone2011/
> Twitter: davsclaus
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>  If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/aggregate-split-with-JMS-possible-tp4375238p4376215.html
>  To unsubscribe from aggregate + split with JMS...possible?, click here<http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=4375238&code=ZGNoZWNrb3dheUBnbWFpbC5jb218NDM3NTIzOHw3MDc4NzEwMTU=>.
>
>


-----
Dan Checkoway
dcheckoway -at- gmail
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/aggregate-split-with-JMS-possible-tp4375238p4376768.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
------=_Part_203_16584497.1304706734743--