On 8/14/06, Muzza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
First off I'm seriously starting to doubt ActiveMQ as a viable production
solution.

Gee thanks. Comments like that really motivate us volunteers here to
help you out with your problem..


Let me explain......

I have a J2EE 1.3 application Deployed within WAS 5.1. One producer puts
messages onto an ActiveMQ 4.0.1 queue and then an MDB consumes these
messages, processes them against a DB and forwards them onto a Response
queue.

I have a delay of about 9 seconds on the consumer, so I'm into the classic
slow consumer, fast producer scenario.

Not really. Slow consumers are only really an issue for topics and
usually non-persistent topics at that.


Can ActiveMQ 4.0.1 handle this scenario and if so what configuration changes
can I make to ensure it handles the situation ?

All you are describing is can you load a queue with lots of messages
and load them faster than you can consume them - and yes that's
possible though like all things it depends on exactly what you are
doing, your platform, your configuration, your number of queues, how
you are using them, what messages you are sending, how big they are
etc


I have upgraded from 3.2.2 believing 4.0.1 would have this issue solved.
I've seen many posts enquiring about the Slow Consumer but never seen a
definitive answer to configuring this in ActiveMQ ? (Not hardcoding but
Configuring)

We're talking queues here I presume though you've not really expanded
too much on that. Persistent queues maybe?


Mention of prefetch policys, prefetchsize and various Destination Policies
have been seen but can you once and for all produce instructions for solving
this situation ?

Messaging is kinda complex - there are so many ways in which it can be
used and so many different use cases and different issues related to
each. Maybe start with describing your actual problem and what your
issue is before assuming that other discussions are immediately
relevant to your situation or casting dispersions on ActiveMQ's
production stability?

--

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Reply via email to