Thanks for the direction , Travis. I was pretty much using the same
configuration you mentioned except the cache_connection option. Still, the
worry is the considerable difference between transactional clients and non
transactional clients, in my case, non transactional are 5 times faster than
tran
Thanks for the direction , Travis. I was pretty much using the same
configuration you mentioned except the cache_connection option. Still, the
worry is the considerable difference between transactional clients and non
transactional clients, in my case, non transactional are 5 times faster than
tran
Can someone please help or provide pointers ? The documentation indeed talks
about batches but cant see how is it feasible using camel batching?
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Camel-Transaction-performance-use-of-batches-tp4720389p4723156.html
Sent from the C
Dear Claus,
I enabled caching by adding the property as described above and the
performance is still the same, around 13 messages/ second compared to
60/second.
As described in my previous post, the locks are happening at a different
point.
Thanks
Viju
--
View this message in context:
http
I will enable the cache setting and test it. Just want to add an update that
the 80 consumer threads seems to be waiting on these two below points most
of the time.
Stack trace:
sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method)
java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(LockSupport.java:118)
java.util.concurre
Im using a camel route which is transacted. I have set the transacted
property to be true in the JMSComponent via JMSConfig. In the route which
listens to a message on a queue (Consumer) , I have provided
tag which makes the route transacted.
The DSL snippet is -
Thanks very much for the quick updates. I tried the same with a fixed queue
and it works.
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Camel-Routes-throws-TimeOutException-after-ESB-restart-tp3229609p3231764.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.co
Thanks much. I was breaking my head to identify the issue
Is there a defect that I can refer to? Wanted to know the reason why this is
happening?
Few follow on questions to do the workaround-
'You can use a fixed reply to queue to work around this issue.'- We are
using temporary queue to have t