Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

it. > Thanks for catching this and contributing the code patch! > > Let me know if I didn't merge in your changes correctly. They should be > included in the 1.0.0 tag branch as well as in the trunk branch. > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Slow-pe

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

ot;. Since this is wireformat > > specific, it is better to have a separate setting that can directly > > control the client's socket settings. > > > > AFAIK the java implementation doesn't use the NoDelay-Flag for the stomp > protocol (at least I haven't found one

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

th sockets support this option, so it seems not yet necessary to make this option available for the STOMP protocol (perhaps in the future). Stefan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-of-NMS-api-compared-to-Java-tp19158553p19214979.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

ent 1.022 Request message recv 1.743 Reply message sent2.655 Reply message recv 218.643 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-of-NMS-api-compared-to-Java-tp19158553p19208717.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

t;>> semog wrote: >>> > >>> > Since I couldn't look at your code because of the license grant issue, >>> > I looked in to what you had mentioned about the NoDelay option. I >>> > took a stab at adding support for turning this (and several other &g

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

d several other >> > socket transport options) on and off from the connection URI. Once >> > you fix the license grant, I can look at your patch and integrate it >> > in with my changes. >> > >> > The solution I am playing with would look like this: >&

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

k like this: > > > > activemq:tcp://localhost:61616?connection.NoDelay=true > > > > This would turn off the Nagle algorithm on the socket connection. > > > > Thanks! > > -Jim > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-of-NMS-api-compared-to-Java-tp19158553p19195937.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

off the Nagle algorithm on the socket connection. > > Thanks! > -Jim > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-of-NMS-api-compared-to-Java-tp19158553p19195937.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

2008/8/28 Vadim Chekan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Would it be property of connection or transport? > I thought connection means JMS connection and it has nothing to do with TCP. FWIW a JMS Connection typically has a TCP connection underneath. We often use the connection URL to configure things like tr

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

Would it be property of connection or transport? I thought connection means JMS connection and it has nothing to do with TCP. Vadim. On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Jim Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since I couldn't look at your code because of the license grant issue, > I looked in to wha

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

Since I couldn't look at your code because of the license grant issue, I looked in to what you had mentioned about the NoDelay option. I took a stab at adding support for turning this (and several other socket transport options) on and off from the connection URI. Once you fix the license grant,

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

Hi Stefan, Thanks for creating Jira AMQNET-109 and attaching the patch. However, the Grant ASF License option was not checked. Would you re-attach the patch and check that option? I can then look at integrating it into the codebase. Thanks! -Jim On 8/26/08, Stefan Gmeiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

nts.defaultTimeToLive); > > WriteTimedMessage("Reply message sent"); > } > > > private static void WriteTimedMessage(String message) > { > lock (typeof(SimpleTest)) > { > TimeSpan diff = DateTime.Now - startOffset; > Console.WriteLine("{0} ms: {1}", > diff.TotalMilliseconds, message); > } > } > } > } > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Slow-performance-of-NMS-api-compared-to-Java-tp19158553p19184345.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Slow performance of NMS api compared to Java

We are evaluating the NMS-API to connect a C# app to our ActiveMQ broker. For this we wrote a simple client which sends a request and waits for a reply (Client --> Broker --> Server --> Broker --> Client). The client/server C#-app runs in a single process with two different connections to the b