--Original Message-
From: Brian S. Crabtree [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cleints and workload balancing
Peter
The question is what are you trying to achieve ? - if it is just the
throughput then option 1 is fine excep
Message-
From: Rick Tsujimoto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cleints and workload balancing
In the first scenario, if the overall throughput is satisfactory, what
difference does it make that you didn't achieve "
d make QM1 a cluster unto itself. This approach costs
more, especially if the client boxes have 2 or more processors.
"Potkay, Peter M
(PLC, IT)" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: C
-
From: "Potkay, Peter M (PLC, IT)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Cleints and workload balancing
> 3 machines are set up identically with the same MQ application (get the
> request/send back the reply). T
3 machines are set up identically with the same MQ application (get the
request/send back the reply). The goal is to make sure that messages are
processed as fast as possible.
QM1 is a spoke in our Hub and Spoke architecture. QM1 sends the original
request to QMHub. From QMHub, the message goes t
