You are right. My question concerns an hypothetical network of broker and it
makes no sense to use it in such.
Charles
bsnyder wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:55 AM, cmoulliard <cmoulli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I presume that when we create a network of 2 brokers running in the same
>> jvm, it makes more sense to use the vm:// as the protocol to interconnect
>> the master broker with the slave ?
>>
>> <networkConnectors>
>> <networkConnector uri="static://(vm://localhost:61617)"/>
>> </networkConnectors>
>>
>> So, we can boost performance for transferring messages from one broker to
>> another and reduce cpu/memory consumption ?
>
> Yes, use of the VM transport will certainly eliminate the use of the
> TCP stack, but I question the value of a broker network that exists in
> a single JVM.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)u8...@4vyy9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
>
-----
Charles Moulliard
SOA Architect
My Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/ http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Protocol-to-be-used-in-a-broker-topolgy-%28same-JVM%29-tp27818595p27824076.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
