> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Statistics-Question-tp4676092p4676131.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Rob Davies
Red Hat, Inc
http://hawt.io - #dontcha
Twitter: rajdavies
Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
ueued" meaning the amount of time a message was sitting in a queue.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Statistics-Question-tp4676092p4676131.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ss than a second
>> 4. the overall enqueue/dequeue application was running for about 2 seconds
>> but checking the statistics already shows enqueue times of about 15000 (in
>> whatever unit that is).
>>
>> This "smells" like a bug to me.
>>
>> -Uli
ut checking the statistics already shows enqueue times of about 15000 (in
> whatever unit that is).
>
> This "smells" like a bug to me.
>
> -Uli
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Statistics-Question-tp467
application was running for about 2 seconds
but checking the statistics already shows enqueue times of about 15000 (in
whatever unit that is).
This "smells" like a bug to me.
-Uli
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Statistics-Question-tp4676092p4
a second translating to an
> enqueue time of less than 1 ms! Are those numbers possibly nanoseconds and
> hence translate into 15-17 microseconds?
>
> Can anyone shed some light on this mystery?
>
> -Uli
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://ac
in less than a second translating to an
enqueue time of less than 1 ms! Are those numbers possibly nanoseconds and
hence translate into 15-17 microseconds?
Can anyone shed some light on this mystery?
-Uli
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Statistics-Question
