Hi, this all sounds good, except I wouldn't include UDP as it is unreliable (as a protocol) and not sure how much would you gain as openwire protocol is pretty much optimized.
Cheers -- Dejan Bosanac ----------------- FuseSource - The experts in open source integration and messaging. Email: dej...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/dejanb ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ Blog - http://www.nighttale.net On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:56 AM, pH <phoenixh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I'm investigating ActiveMQ for a trial in the following scenario: > 1. End-customer own ships/planes/boats (3-5 vessels) that are linked to the > HQ on land via Satellite > 2. Satellite provisions on-demand datalink > 3. Data will need to be sync between HQ and vessels on a regular basis > 4. Satellite data charges are relatively expensive, so we need to try to > reduce it > > I am thinking of > 1. 1 ActiveMQ per vessel, 1 ActiveMQ at HQ (HA/failover can be implemented > later) > 2. Data to be sync-ed to the other side will be placed on the local ActiveMQ > instance > 3. HQ will access data on ship by connecting to ActiveMQ instance on vessel > 4. Vessel will access data at HQ by connecting to ActiveMQ instance there > 5. Configuring ActiveMQs to use UDP instead of TCP to save on comms overhead > (?) > > Would this approach work? > 1. Will using UDP help to reduce the comms overhead? Each network packet > sent (whether full or not) is charged > 2. Should I skip the main MQ instance in the HQ? > > Any advice / suggestions and criticisms are welcomed and needed. > > Thank you very much... :))) > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/MQ-architecture-query-tp3044196p3044196.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
