Sorry, I missed the second line of link. I could access it. Thanks Pravin Kundal wrote: > > I couldn't access the link below. > > Is it the same example that Apache-ActiveMQ ship with the CMS library? > > Thanks a lot. > > > Mittler, Nathan wrote: >> >> >>> >>> In the case I will need to implement the concurrency control >>> over the session, so that only one thread can use the >>> session, as sessions are implemented for serial use? Rght? >> >> Yes, you should add your own concurrency control for the session. >> >>> >>> I tried the first case in which i implemented the >>> multithreading, each thread running its own session and each >>> session having one producer. But the results were not even >>> close to our requriment (result in msges/sec). >>> >> >> Were you using openwire or stomp as the protocol? We have seen cases >> where small messages with openwire cause extra delay due to the naggle >> algorithm and that message footprints are smaller than their stomp >> counterpart. If you're using openwire, I suggest you switch over to >> stomp and see if you have different results. If that does the trick, >> our next release will allow a user-specified TCP-NODELAY socket option >> that should fix the problem for openwire (for small messages). >> >>> Do you think the other case can give us the better results >>> (i.e. "The ActiveMQ-CPP implementation, however, will allow >>> you to share a session across threads.") >>> >> >> Without understanding your particular usage of the client, I would guess >> that a different usage wouldn't help much. Just to make sure, however, >> you could slightly modify our example application >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/activemq-cpp/trunk/src/example >> s/main.cpp and see if you can get it to meet your requirements. >> >> >> Regards, >> Nate >> >> > >
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Implementation-of-multithreading-model-on-CMS-ActiveMQ-tf3790047s2354.html#a10721114 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
