X-Received: by 10.66.82.37 with SMTP id f5mr8118289pay.27.1357592473604; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:01:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.50.196.135 with SMTP id im7mr2653380igc.1.1357592473353; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!f6no16502715pbd.1!news-out.google.com!s9ni88763pbb.0!nntp.google.com!b8no9373054pbd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 13:01:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <94fcfac6-eff5-4e84-956a-8a7970867867@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.100.97.30; posting-account=LYoTOgoAAABkuGLLOGXg_LiQpwWAp52F
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.100.97.30
References: <94fcfac6-eff5-4e84-956a-8a7970867867@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0e808ee4-0f98-47fd-bf72-ee98ad7bcc81@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc.
From: me 2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:01:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:21166

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 4:26:17 PM UTC-5, me2 wrote:
> Greetings,
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I am a newbie to JMS and would appreciate some advice.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Has anyone compared JMS to socket programming?  If I have N number of cli=
ents that need to connect to and send messages to 1 server, what is the com=
parison?  I would guess that sockets--direct from a client to the server--w=
ould be the fastest for speed and maybe take the least bandwidth.  But I wo=
uld expect that there would only be negligible size increases for the JMS o=
verhead once the connection was established and I would expect that a pub-s=
ub topic would be able to smoke through sending the N number of clients mes=
sages, rather than loop through the connections/sockets and sending the mes=
sage to each of them.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Has anyone else looked at this?  I'm going through the exercise to set up=
 a JMS server, but I thought maybe someone else could point me in the right=
 direction.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> me2

I figured that if anyone else had this problem, then it would be worth pass=
ing on this information. =20

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Message-bandwidth-overheads-how-to-re=
duce-td3718866.html

According to this, an empty message with no other information is about 300 =
and some odd bytes.  So, the plain socket in our extremely low bandwidth pr=
oject might be better served with plain sockets.  Not the answer that I wan=
ted, but still, at least, an answer.

Cheers all and thank you to everyone who responded.
me 2