there could well be an improvement using nio. Also - it it possible to
move to version 5.3 - which is generally a lot more stable.
Btw - you didn't mention if you were having performance problems ?
cheers,
Rob
On 25 Nov 2009, at 19:55, Andres Rangel wrote:
Bruce thanks for your reply.
The consumers create the temporary queue only once, and they are
cached in a pool for subsequent usage.
We are using tcp connection. If we move to nio connection, will
there be any noticeable improvement?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Snyder [mailto:bruce.sny...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:45 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Best implementation for reply-request
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Andres Rangel
<andr...@corp.moniker.com> wrote:
Hi,
We have currently running apache activemq 5.2 in a network of brokers
It has close to 1500 producers and 1200 consumers.
This producers have each one a temporary queue so that will be 1500
temp queues in the system.
The reply-request is implemented using temporary queues.
I would like to know if there's a performance hit by using temporary
queues instead of using another option.
What do you guys think?
There's more overhead involved with such constant creation/destruction
of temp queues, but that's it. As long as the broker has been tuned to
scale for handling such a large number of destinations, then you
should be OK:
http://activemq.apache.org/scaling-queues.html
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)u8...@4vyy9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!
G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Rob Davies
http://twitter.com/rajdavies
I work here: http://fusesource.com
My Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
I'm writing this: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
