On 7/11/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/11/06, bhusted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> >Do you expect there to be a large numbers of messages; or do you expect
> there to be a relatively >small number of messages?
>
> The requirements are to prepare a solution that can scale to 50 million
> transactions in a 24 hour period.
Depending on hardware and exact OS/JVM/ActiveMQ configuration a single
broker can handle 10-100 million messages per hour - so 50 million
transactions in 24 hours sounds well within the bounds of a single
broker.
> A transaction will spawn multiple
> messages on the broker to handle workflow, auditing and a single
> request/reply to the compute farm. The compute farm will also host a
> broker for messaging among local components.
>
> >What kind of message throughput do you expect? It could be just a single
> broker would do the trick
> >(with maybe another broker acting as standby) - or just having 2
> independent brokers with producers >and consumers connecting to either
> broker.
>
> I think we will definitely need multiple brokers. I would prefer that the
> consumers have the ability to load balance across brokers - is this
> possible? What configuration would you recommend?
The simplest solution is to create consumers in each JVM on each
broker available & share a thread pool across the consumers; so
however many brokers you run you can easily process messages on the
consumers. (Using networks for store and forward is less efficient as
you end up with multi-hops - its easier to just create pools of
consumers on each broker in a single JVM).
It would be nice to wrap up the above behaviour into a new transport
layer (like peer and failover etc).
I've raised a JIRA...
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-816
the benefit of this approach is it allows individual brokers to be
deployed and used in a linear fashion; there's no need to store/foward
between brokers.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
