rg,I can certainly think of several ways of implementing an in memory handoff between the queues. That would actually be much faster, probably. I am going to review the sample code tomorrow
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:29 PM, rg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ayende, I have sent you the example, sorry for dirty code. > My goal was to replace a trivial message bus I have written some time > ago with something better, that's why I started experimenting with > RSB. I intended to use message queues as a means of inter component > communication and as the system grows there are more messages and > overall performance depends heavily on message bus. I'll need to > process several hundred or even few thousand messages per second . I'm > not sure what performance we will get with RQ - in comparison, my > messasge queue based on SQL server table has throughput of about 50-80 > messages per second. In my system majority of messages don't leave the > process boundary - so maybe something like in-memory queues with > persistence would be ideal for such case. > Best regards > RG > > On Apr 30, 6:29 pm, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rafal,a) message consumers are trasient, this is enforced by the > RSBFacility > > b) I haven't done any perf testing for rhino queues, so it is not > surprising > > that you find issues. > > Can you send me the sampe app you use for that? > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, nightwatch77 <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
