From users-return-2376-apmail-qpid-users-archive=qpid.apache.org@qpid.apache.org Wed Dec 30 20:33:45 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 38278 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2009 20:33:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Dec 2009 20:33:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 15269 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2009 20:33:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 12411 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2009 20:33:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 11151 invoked by uid 99); 30 Dec 2009 20:33:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:33:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jwatte@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.228 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.228] (HELO mail-gx0-f228.google.com) (209.85.217.228) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:22:17 +0000 Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so5826254gxk.9 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:21:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=BEpI9e8rC7iFA56Eqs92Eh1cpzn7wPZcgMNf2HygTWI=; b=AJmTolquyqJnFbeLa1DU4TUHKYjuEL+lIsDR1xY1r3eiWoJFj5ktg3GZpbfpudLBFn pWCdg+Fl7wyOqcjD6fBY5ofSwDmAkNbRZ9YxI6HWs2QnII31vkBwVyZWF6RfmJEoOqVg piyzvSwoifEuryqfc1nyYOx+n0NgdM8Dyk5YE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=iyiqVW+bvk138ePKnblCQRsSkTzyg+pKMjaDK+qTSieFey5/KW3XYuZdRezSgIcv4S IiFWwWIIkmwhFCkc1mGaPd/c1C/CBtpbHYwUMhhbYqvyKGRt0ideA/MwuxOtbPJyjkSu SfhNnfvzKnCHSNHyyadM46FwmmFnbyeRhOjcE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.243.21 with SMTP id q21mr27198877ybh.215.1262204516568; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:21:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:21:56 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Scale question From: Jon Watte To: users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd25692d80e5d047bf7e366 --000e0cd25692d80e5d047bf7e366 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I notice that the default connection count for qpid is 300 connections. That seems very low for the use case I'm interested in. Is it reasonable to expect that each broker can serve 10,000 to 20,000 connections, if each connection just sees a few messages a second, totaling perhaps a kilobyte each of payload per second? Does this expectation hold up if I use queue forward clustering (all exchanges are fan-out) across a hundred brokers, each with 10,000 to 20,000 users? Sincerely, jw -- Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption rates, because our present rates are unsustainable. --000e0cd25692d80e5d047bf7e366--