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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20752

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

Show all headers | View raw

In article <c3WCs.31155$tG.11699@newsfe15.iad>,
 Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> wrote:

> On 12/27/2012 03:35 AM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > In article <94fcfac6-eff5-4e84-956a-8a7970867867@googlegroups.com>,
> >   me2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> I am a newbie to JMS and would appreciate some advice.
> >>
> >> Has anyone compared JMS to socket programming?  If I have N number of 
> >> clients
> >> that need to connect to and send messages to 1 server, what is the
> >> comparison?  I would guess that sockets--direct from a client to the
> >> server--would be the fastest for speed and maybe take the least bandwidth.
> >> But I would expect that there would only be negligible size increases for 
> >> the
> >> JMS overhead once the connection was established and I would expect that a
> >> pub-sub topic would be able to smoke through sending the N number of 
> >> clients
> >> messages, rather than loop through the connections/sockets and sending the
> >> message to each of them.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> me2
> >
> > JMS is about topic management, queue management, message persistence,
> > and reliable distribution in a complex environment prone to failures.
> > If you don't need any of that, like a log host, you'll be much happier
> > with a plain socket.  If you do need that stuff you probably want a JMS
> > implementation rather than writing it yourself.
> >
> > JMS services are typically very heavy weight.  Memory and disk space are
> > needed to buffer data to nodes that temporarily fall behind or go
> > offline.  Configuration can take a while too.
> >
> It's funny how people can come at things from a different perspective. 
> In my world messaging providers like JMS providers or WMQ (and JMS and 
> MQ clients) are _lightweight_. I actually stopped and tried to process 
> your "novel" concept for a few seconds. :-)
> 
> AHS

They're almost lightweight without the high reliability options, but 
those are the same options that cause people to choose JMS rather than 
an in-house solution.  FFMQ is a lightweight codebase but it's still 
going to hit disk I/O fairly hard.  ActiveMQ is a resource-consuming 
beast when faced with reliable delivery to clients that are lagging.  
ActiveMQ also has dependencies on half the Internet so it's prone to 
creating library conflicts.
-- 
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam

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