My apologies if this is me totally failing to grok how this works...
A little more experimenting (this was done using the Fedora 16 packages):
qpid-config add queue doppleganger
qpid-config add exchange topic doppleganger
(in either order of execution) creates a queue *and* an exchange, both wit
I'm working through the Address tutorial here:
http://qpid.apache.org/books/0.16/Programming-In-Apache-Qpid/html/section-addresses.html
I was not expecting this behaviour:
$ spout 'amq.topic; {assert: always, node: { type: topic}}' test-message
Message(properties={'spout-id': 'ea2e7b50-4153-4d4e-
Ok, so to check I understand correctly, and seek clarification on some
points...
You have potentially 30 application instances that have 5 connections, 20
sessions per connection, and are each creating 2 consumers on all 6000
priority queues (using 600 consumers per session), thus giving up to 150
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 01:22 PM, Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to use the receiver.unsettled() method of the python receiver
>> object (mostly to figure out what it does).
>>
>> When I call it, however, I get this error:
>>
>> Tra
I see (I think).
I don't have a production use case atm, I'm just experimenting. I was using
auto-delete queues so that my tests cleaned up after themselves.
I was under the (mistaken) impression that a sender gave me a handle on a
queue. If I understand this correctly, what I actually get is a h
Hi Robbie. Thank you for writing back. Please see inline for answers to
some of the questions you had.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> Hi Praveen,
>
> I have talked this over with some of the others here, and tend to agree
> with Gordon and Rajith that mixing asynchronous
We used here to create a private reply queue for each request/reply (and
also, we discovered leaks with Ted Ross in 0.10 version that time).
After that, we changed our code to pre-create a private reply queue for
each connection that perform request / reply operations, using message.
message.Reply
Using a correlation-id is less overhead than working with a huge
amount of queues.
This will allow you to service a large number of request/replies with
a relatively smaller number of queues.
You could probably experiment with both approaches and see for yourself.
Rajith
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at
On 16/07/12 15:01, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
I'd agree with Gordon.
If at all possible I will pre-create my private queues, rather than
creating them on demand.
Writing a bit of extra code for working with a fix number of queues is
worth from a performance standpoint.
It's not just about handling t
I'd agree with Gordon.
If at all possible I will pre-create my private queues, rather than
creating them on demand.
Writing a bit of extra code for working with a fix number of queues is
worth from a performance standpoint.
Regards,
Rajith
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On
On 07/16/2012 01:22 PM, Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf wrote:
I'm trying to use the receiver.unsettled() method of the python receiver
object (mostly to figure out what it does).
When I call it, however, I get this error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "unsettled.py", line 14, in
On 07/16/2012 12:34 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Hi.
What kind of overhead to you expect from having to create the
("private") queue when initialising a qpid::messaging::receiver?
If it is not a durable queue then the overhead is not that high, however...
I'm implementing request-response type com
On 07/16/2012 12:04 PM, Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf wrote:
Hi, I noticed that if I create an autodeleting queue and it gets
auto-deleted, my attempts to send to it don't cause an exception, and my
messages seem to disappear into the ether. Is that expected behaviour?
Expected by whom?!
It is
I'm trying to use the receiver.unsettled() method of the python receiver
object (mostly to figure out what it does).
When I call it, however, I get this error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "unsettled.py", line 14, in
msgs=rx.unsettled()
File "", line 6, in unsettled
File "/u
Hi Praveen,
I have talked this over with some of the others here, and tend to agree
with Gordon and Rajith that mixing asynchronous and synchronous consumers
in that fashion isn't a route I would really suggest; using two sessions
makes for complication around transactionality and ordering, and I
Hi.
What kind of overhead to you expect from having to create the
("private") queue when initialising a qpid::messaging::receiver?
I'm implementing request-response type communication over a direct
exchange, with a private "auto-delete" queue for responses (whose
address is specified in repl
Hi, I noticed that if I create an autodeleting queue and it gets
auto-deleted, my attempts to send to it don't cause an exception, and my
messages seem to disappear into the ether. Is that expected behaviour?
I'm using the python client. Here's a minimal test case that reproduces the
behaviour:
i
hi Martin,
it looks like you have set qpid route ssl link successfully,
I currently want to set a queue route working between my 2 c++ brokers
running 0.16, after putting a lot of effort into it, i coun't get it
done also.
the scenario is as following:
I started the 2 qpidd with each of fo
18 matches
Mail list logo