I would vote for (c) option.
Gordon Sim wrote > The c++ broker reports a queue depth in terms of total bytes, as well as > the number of messages. > > For 0-10 the bytes statistic is calculated by aggregating only the > content size (i.e. the size of the body segment). For 1.0 it is the > whole message including properties etc (i.e. the payload of the transfer > 'performative'). > > So the size will be different depending on the protocol used in sending > it and this difference can be quite marked. E.g. in an extreme case > where there are many headers but no content, the bytes reported if sent > over 0-10 would be 0 whereas if sent over 1.0 could easily be several > hundred bytes. > > The question is what to do about this. The options are (a) accept that > they are inconsistent between versions, (b) modify the 1.0 path to only > record the application-data or (c) modify the 0-10 path to include the > size of the header segment. > > While (c) seems to me to be logical the most 'correct', it would be a > difference in behaviour. It would mean for example that any queue limits > would be hit earlier. One could argue that would be an improvement, but > it may cause issues for systems when upgrading. > > The purpose of this mail is to solicit some feedback from users as to > which of these options (or indeed other options that have not occurred > to me) would be preferable. > > --Gordon. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > users-unsubscribe@.apache > For additional commands, e-mail: > users-help@.apache -- View this message in context: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/survey-c-broker-and-queue-depth-statistics-tp7598657p7598792.html Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
