As an aside, while we wait for the OP to tell us whether any of these suggestions are relevant to his situation:
In most cases, you want producers and consumers to be decoupled, so that a slow consumer doesn't block its producers. Flow control is typically used to protect the broker and to prevent misbehaving clients on one destination from affecting clients on other destinations. I would be very cautious about any architecture that proposed the intentional linking of producer processes and consumer processes via a flow control window, since it can broaden the impact of problems beyond the process that is experiencing them. Tim On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 10:31 AM David Martin <dav...@qoritek.com> wrote: > Hello, > > You could possibly try producer window-based flow control to stop messages > backing up on the queue when consumers are offline (e.g. using an > intermediate queue to store the backlog) - > > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/1.0.0/flow-control.html > > > > Dave > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 11:01 PM Christopher Pisz, < > christopherp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I am using Artemis with Websockets and STOMP > > > > A third party I am working with suspects that their software is having > > trouble when there are many messages queued up and they connect, then > > receiving back to back messages until the queue drains. > > > > Is there a way to configure "Please pause x milliseconds between sending > > messages out to subscribers" or "pause x milliseconds between sending > each > > message?" > > > > I know their network code is probably flawed, but this might provide a > > stopgap, so thought I'd ask. > > >
