On 2/20/07, Paul French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm looking into it now.
Can you confirm producer.send(tempQueue, jmsResponse) is async in my case. I
wondering if the call becomes a sync call due to the method specifying a
queue and whether some sync checks need to be done before the message
>> producer = session.createProducer(null); // set as null since
>> we
>> >>> do
>> >>> not know the destination
>> >>> connection.start();
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Each call do
Queue, jmsResponse);
>>>
>>> Any idea why this is significanly slower then a call to a pre-defined
>>> known
>>> queue.
>>
>> No - I'm afraid not. You are reusing the same tempQueue each send
>> right? Are you using explicit async sending?
>>
>> --
>>
>> James
>> ---
>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Sending-Async-messages-to-temp-queue-really-slow-tf3242950s2354.html#a9057110
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
connection.start();
>>>
>>>
>>> Each call does...
>>>
>>>producer.send(tempQueue, jmsResponse);
>>>
>>> Any idea why this is significanly slower then a call to a pre-defined
>>> known
>>> queue.
>>
>> No - I'm afraid not. You are reusing the same tempQueue each send
>> right? Are you using explicit async sending?
>>
>> --
>>
>> James
>> ---
>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Sending-Async-messages-to-temp-queue-really-slow-tf3242950s2354.html#a9057110
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
t; Each call does...
>>
>>producer.send(tempQueue, jmsResponse);
>>
>> Any idea why this is significanly slower then a call to a pre-defined
>> known
>> queue.
>
> No - I'm afraid not. You are reusing the same tempQueue each send
On 2/19/07, Paul French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand any potential contention issues in ActiveMQ so I thought I
may as well use a connection for the incoming and another connection for the
outgoing.
I do not create a connection/session/producer per request. They are created
onl
ating another connection, a session
>> and a
>> single producer.
>
> Why? Thats gonna be very slow. Why not just reuse the same session
> that you are using for consuming and just cache a MessageProducer you
> can use for sending (and do async sends)
>
> --
>
> James
> ---
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Sending-Async-messages-to-temp-queue-really-slow-tf3242950s2354.html#a9040119
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 2/17/07, Paul French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am using the defualt install of activeMQ 4.1.0
I've turned off persistence and increased memory-manager setting to 500MB
I've also updated the startup script so that the java heap can increase to
1G of memory if required
The messaging layer of
nly manage to send 50 a second back to the temp queue.
Is there any obvious things I can do to speed this up?
Why is it slow? Any ideas?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Sending-Async-messages-to-temp-queue-really-slow-tf3242950s2354.html#a9015159
Sent from the Activ