Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:45:06 +0100 Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <94fcfac6-eff5-4e84-956a-8a7970867867@googlegroups.com> <50db8fbd$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <6e499946-6fcb-46e6-b961-040b25493850@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net Nk0vByuHewf1xH5vnZ3EKwlE7DTNuY07QoZpYpo/+1stFL3zrTp+xTc+Zlvkw9mvc= Cancel-Lock: sha1:JvE/xGTMpkM47HSJlUX8hqHo5lQ= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 In-Reply-To: <6e499946-6fcb-46e6-b961-040b25493850@googlegroups.com> Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:20726 On 27.12.2012 05:46, mcheung63@gmail.com wrote: > I believe socket has the best performance, i tried to user socket and > pipeline to send data to a c++ program, socket win. That statement is pretty meaningless. First, we do not know what you did, i.e. what you measured. Then, you did not make any statement whatsoever how big the difference is. Third, engineers usually deal with tradeoffs: it could well be that 5% performance penalty is well worth the 5 weeks savings in development time to implement your own protocol using a socket. (Eventually you may find out that by that time the 5% performance reduction is actually a 10% performance advantage because your home grown version is slower because of some quirk in your own implementation.) Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/