In that case - if you've a good test case you could submit, I'm sure
you'll get a lot of folks (me included) willing to tune ActiveMq for
this scenario
cheers,
Rob
On 12 Jan 2007, at 13:17, Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Yeah, I have exactly that scenario ;)
James.Strachan wrote:
On 1/11/07, Abdul Alhazred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting, so what about using a multicast transport with a
network of
brokers? If all the brokers can see the multicast then they
shouldn't
need
store and forward at all.
I'd recommend TCP if you want reliability. Currently we tend to use
multicast purely for discovery as if a node misses a message due to
packet loss (or the input buffer being full so the network card
discards it) then a point-to-point redelivery mechanism is required
which can cause network storms if you're not careful. We've got the
start of a basic implentation of reliable UDP/multicast but its not
completely flushed out and working just yet.
If the messages are small (so they fit inside a single datagram) and
you don't care about loosing them (such as for market data prices) by
all means give multicast a try if you want.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Volume-of-
messages-tf2941814.html#a8298155
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
