Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20763

Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc.

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, December 28, 2012 10:50:54 AM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/28/2012 10:25 AM, me2 wrote:
> 
> > I think that I didn't phrase my question well enough.  There are two
> 
> > metrics that I am curious about--bandwidth usage and speed.  For X
> 
> > messages of N length (assume a constant size) going to each of Y
> 
> > consumers (so, X * Y messages total), what is the comparison?  I can
> 
> > test the speed and so far, the sockets seem to win as long as there
> 
> > are not a lot of consumers (otherwise the threading seems to choke
> 
> > it).  That leaves the bandwidth question--how much larger (if any) is
> 
> > a JMS message on the wire vs in a socket.  I would hazard (as a
> 
> > newbie) that the socket is smaller--you don't have wrappers or
> 
> > envelopes or meta data but instead just the data.  So how much larger
> 
> > is the JMS message?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think speed and bandwidth are the most important
> 
> criteria for deciding between sockets and JMS? I have never
> 
> seen that choice made for only performance reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> JMS is just an API, so JMS does not have a specific size overhead.
> 
> Each implementation will have different size overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> And if the socket code is slower than the JMS code for large number
> 
> of consumers then that only means that the socket code is not
> 
> optimal written.
> 
> 
> 
> Arne

Good morning Arne,

The socket code clocked faster when processing 1 consumer and 1 producer than my quick throw-together of JMS with 5 consumers and 1 producer.  Both sent 10 character strings 10,000 times.  I'm just getting back into Java, so I'm sure that the socket programming was not as optimized as it could be--but there was 3 consumers and 1 producer and it still was faster than the 1 producer/5 consumer JMS setup.  The multiple consumers connected to a socket/thread setup as illustrated by Oracle in their KnockKnock example--so I'm not sure how this would scale for 10 consumers, 100 consumers, etc.

The bandwidth size is the most important priority because of a number of considerations--I can't justify using JMS if it uses 10 times the bandwidth--so I have to figure out how to measure that.  The next thing is speed--how fast can the X number of messages go through.  The next priority is maintainability and somewhere else down the list is scalability.

So that's how it goes.  I'm looking at Wireshark but I'm very new to it, so I am going to have to figure out how that works.

Thanks for your point of view,
me2

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-26 13:26 -0800
  Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-26 13:35 -0800
  Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-26 19:00 -0500
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. mcheung63@gmail.com - 2012-12-26 20:46 -0800
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-26 20:53 -0800
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-12-27 14:45 +0100
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:26 -0500
        Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2013-01-08 09:28 +0000
          Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-08 19:54 -0500
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2012-12-27 14:26 +0100
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:18 -0500
        Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2012-12-27 19:47 +0100
          Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 14:09 -0500
  Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2012-12-26 23:35 -0800
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2012-12-27 07:13 -0400
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:25 -0500
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2012-12-28 00:59 -0800
        Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 10:59 -0500
          Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2012-12-28 12:19 -0800
            Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 23:46 -0500
              Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 23:49 -0500
        Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2012-12-29 08:30 -0400
          Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-29 20:31 -0500
            Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-01-01 23:25 +0100
              Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-01 18:18 -0500
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:22 -0500
  Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-28 07:25 -0800
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 10:50 -0500
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-28 08:44 -0800
        Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-29 20:52 -0500
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-28 13:24 -0800
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2012-12-29 08:48 -0400
  Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me 2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-07 13:01 -0800
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-07 13:09 -0800
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-07 20:02 -0500
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-01-07 18:42 -0800
        Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-07 22:07 -0500
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-01-08 00:00 -0800
    Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-11 01:07 -0800
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-11 11:04 -0800
      Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-11 20:09 -0500

csiph-web