Re: M2.1plan

[Michael Arnoldus]

I agree. I am a an AMQP user currently using Rabbit, since the thing just works, it complies with AMPQ 0.8 and we get very nice support. From my point of view interop is the highest priority - why would I choose AMQP if it's not AMQP?

Keep the good work going :-)

Kind regards,

Michael Aroldus

On Jan 10, 2008, at 16:38 , Robert Greig wrote:

Also - interesting discussion about performance - I'd be interested in better and less biased comparisons, while I'm still aware that msg/sec and latency is not the only interesting kind of performance in a product like this.

On 10/01/2008, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

/That is only not very impressive given they used a 16 core box to do it

and 4k messages. I did some comp runs when the numbers first came out

and Rabbit is a hog compared to qpid, and a lot slower for the same CPU.

Yes I ran our topic test against it and it used lots of CPU compared
with Qpid and ground to a halt with about 4 consumers.

Enabling all prospective users to run tests easily against any broker
would help users make choices between different implementations. This
was why I was so keen to have interop.

RG

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature