Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9977

Re: JMS scalability question

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From	saxo123@gmx.de
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: JMS scalability question
Date	Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:35:05 -0800 (PST)
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Lines	24
Message-ID	<5f805cc6-58b1-49e5-933f-4c6dbbceb65d@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References	<bb8b61d2-fe1f-42b8-93d8-2d1a329e6afb@a16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <cch7c7lgr584uda3pemeeg5jlfhkdi8jnp@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	81.200.198.20
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace	posting.google.com 1321465003 1288 127.0.0.1 (16 Nov 2011 17:36:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:36:43 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To	groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info	g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.200.198.20; posting-account=QuOrbQoAAADk1Ytmd4kkfWK7_Nh1pnw_
User-Agent	G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via	1.1 modpragw-109v.linux.rz.db.de:8080 (squid/2.7.STABLE9), 1.0 itami (squid/3.1.15)
X-Google-Web-Client	true
X-Google-Header-Order	ARLEUHCVFNK
X-HTTP-UserAgent	Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9977

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi Roedy,

thanks for your reply. I see what you mean. You would mostly play with
control valves that are outside the software like adding servers or
adding RAM.

Let's say there are 10 consumers and everyone takes messages from a
queue exclusively assigned to itself. Consequently, there are 10
queues in total. Now, each queue is filled with 100 messages each. I
would expect these 1000 messages in total to be processed faster this
way than, say, 1000 messages sitting in a single queue served by a
single consumer. Naively speaking, those 10 consumers should eat up
those 1000 messages 10 times faster. But this is pure mind gambling.
No clue how things would turn out in reality. Maybe the increased
network traffic of 10 consumers polling a queue instead of a single
one would decrease performance...

Do you think it would be useful to make the "message bus" pluggable in
the sense that some SPI is provided so that anyone can increase the
number of queues if considered appropriate? I wonder whether that kind
of pluggable message bus system already exists. Guess it does since
there must be a need for something like this.

Regards, Oliver

Thread

JMS scalability question saxo123@gmx.de - 2011-11-15 02:07 -0800
  Re: JMS scalability question Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-16 06:21 -0800
    Re: JMS scalability question saxo123@gmx.de - 2011-11-16 09:35 -0800
      Re: JMS scalability question Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-16 10:30 -0800
        Re: JMS scalability question saxo123@gmx.de - 2011-11-16 14:25 -0800
          Re: JMS scalability question Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-16 17:18 -0800
            Re: JMS scalability question saxo123@gmx.de - 2011-11-16 22:59 -0800
              Re: JMS scalability question jlp <jlp@jlp.com> - 2011-11-17 08:41 +0100
                Re: JMS scalability question saxo123@gmx.de - 2011-11-17 01:00 -0800
      Re: JMS scalability question Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-16 16:16 -0800
  Re: JMS scalability question Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2011-11-17 08:11 +0000
    Re: JMS scalability question saxo123@gmx.de - 2011-11-17 01:26 -0800
      Re: JMS scalability question Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2011-11-17 21:01 +0000
        Re: JMS scalability question Saxo <saxo123@gmx.de> - 2011-11-17 23:27 -0800

csiph-web