James.Strachan wrote:
>
> On 05/12/2007, Marc Zampetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> Yes, it sounds like the JEDI thing and the partitioning approach is what
>> I
>> need. And yes, I'm talking queues for the most part. For the
>> pa
aving one big
network of brokers, I would have several smaller networks of brokers?
Marc
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> On 05/12/2007, Marc Zampetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> You are right about the HA comment I originally made. I was referring
is is on a single destination then a network of brokers won't help
> in the slightest (in fact its a really bad idea :).
>
> On 05/12/2007, Marc Zampetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. But in this case, it won&
t; about a composite queue in combination with selectors? For example, in
> the snippet below, Q.FOO gets a subset of the message stream being sent to
> Q.BLAST, while Q.BAR gets the entire stream.
>
>
>
>/>
>
>
All,
I'm considering ActiveMQ for an application that has very high message rates
expected, at the rate of 6 - 10 million messages per minute. All of these
messages are fairly small, on the order of 100 bytes or less, but they will
be very regular, with a a large burst of additional messages (aro
