You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Jiang <zj...@163.com> on 2007/07/07 10:42:44 UTC
why can not connect to the brokers
I config 3 brokers . In the client code , I use uri as
"list:tcp://localhost:61616,tcp://192.168.1.110:61616,tcp://192.168.1.112:61616"
. But when I start the code , it throw "Transport scheme NOT recognized:
[list]" . From the docs, I find list: is valid for multi brokers connection
. Why ?
Any help is welcome .
thanks
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/why-can-not-connect-to-the-brokers-tf4039601s2354.html#a11476576
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: why can not connect to the brokers
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
with failover:// did you set the randomize property to false ? Its
probable your local machine wasn't being picked
On Jul 10, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Jiang wrote:
>
> James:
> Whether 'static' schema is not supported also? Last time I tried
> 'failover', but I find it was slow some way.(I configured 3
> brokers , one
> was my machine. I run the client code on my machine. I used
> 'failover:(tcp://localhost:61616,...)' in my opinion it should find
> localhost in a short time , but from the test result , it was more
> slower
> than what I expected.)
>
> James.Strachan wrote:
>>
>> Yeah - or use failover...
>>
>> http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
>>
>> On 7/9/07, Adrian Co <ac...@exist.com> wrote:
>>> Must be out-dated documentation. I don't think list is a valid
>>> transport
>>> scheme. You could try the static transport scheme.
>>>
>>> Jiang wrote:
>>>> I config 3 brokers . In the client code , I use uri as
>>>>
>>> "list:tcp://localhost:61616,tcp://192.168.1.110:61616,tcp://
>>> 192.168.1.112:61616"
>>>> . But when I start the code , it throw "Transport scheme NOT
>>> recognized:
>>>> [list]" . From the docs, I find list: is valid for multi brokers
>>> connection
>>>> . Why ?
>>>> Any help is welcome .
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James
>> -------
>> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/why-can-not-
> connect-to-the-brokers-tf4039601s2354.html#a11515312
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Rob Davies
'Go further faster with Apache Camel!'
http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
Re: Creating MessageConsumer overhead
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 7/10/07, Jim Alateras <ji...@comware.com.au> wrote:
> Just a general question about the overhead on creating MessageConsumer
> instances. Is it efficient to create MessageConsumers for relatively
> short conversations.
>
> For example a loop which basically checks for a message, executes a
> policy on the message and then sleeps for some interval. Would it be
> efficient to create a new MessageConsumer at the start of each iteration.
Its mostly a latency cost on the client side. There's some overhead;
particularly if the consumer is on a large queue using selectors with
filter most messages; as each new consumer created causes the broker
to iterate through all pending messages attempting to push them to the
new consumer.
So the faster approach will always to be to create consumers up front
and share them- then use say Message Groups to keep conversations
apart - but otherwise creating consumers for relatively short
conversations should be fine.
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Creating MessageConsumer overhead
Posted by Jim Alateras <ji...@comware.com.au>.
Just a general question about the overhead on creating MessageConsumer
instances. Is it efficient to create MessageConsumers for relatively
short conversations.
For example a loop which basically checks for a message, executes a
policy on the message and then sleeps for some interval. Would it be
efficient to create a new MessageConsumer at the start of each iteration.
cheers
</jima>
Re: why can not connect to the brokers
Posted by Jiang <zj...@163.com>.
James :
thanks. I have another question. For 'Network of brokers' , if broker A
and broker B have destination with same names , what will happen ? From
'networks-of-brokers.html' I do not know clearly about this
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> On 7/10/07, Jiang <zj...@163.com> wrote:
>>
>> James:
>> Whether 'static' schema is not supported also? Last time I tried
>> 'failover', but I find it was slow some way.(I configured 3 brokers , one
>> was my machine. I run the client code on my machine. I used
>> 'failover:(tcp://localhost:61616,...)' in my opinion it should find
>> localhost in a short time , but from the test result , it was more slower
>> than what I expected.)
>
> If you favour the local machine, then turn of randomization.
>
> --
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/why-can-not-connect-to-the-brokers-tf4039601s2354.html#a11517383
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: why can not connect to the brokers
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 7/10/07, Jiang <zj...@163.com> wrote:
>
> James:
> Whether 'static' schema is not supported also? Last time I tried
> 'failover', but I find it was slow some way.(I configured 3 brokers , one
> was my machine. I run the client code on my machine. I used
> 'failover:(tcp://localhost:61616,...)' in my opinion it should find
> localhost in a short time , but from the test result , it was more slower
> than what I expected.)
If you favour the local machine, then turn of randomization.
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Re: why can not connect to the brokers
Posted by Jiang <zj...@163.com>.
James:
Whether 'static' schema is not supported also? Last time I tried
'failover', but I find it was slow some way.(I configured 3 brokers , one
was my machine. I run the client code on my machine. I used
'failover:(tcp://localhost:61616,...)' in my opinion it should find
localhost in a short time , but from the test result , it was more slower
than what I expected.)
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> Yeah - or use failover...
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
>
> On 7/9/07, Adrian Co <ac...@exist.com> wrote:
>> Must be out-dated documentation. I don't think list is a valid transport
>> scheme. You could try the static transport scheme.
>>
>> Jiang wrote:
>> > I config 3 brokers . In the client code , I use uri as
>> >
>> "list:tcp://localhost:61616,tcp://192.168.1.110:61616,tcp://192.168.1.112:61616"
>> > . But when I start the code , it throw "Transport scheme NOT
>> recognized:
>> > [list]" . From the docs, I find list: is valid for multi brokers
>> connection
>> > . Why ?
>> > Any help is welcome .
>> >
>> > thanks
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/why-can-not-connect-to-the-brokers-tf4039601s2354.html#a11515312
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: why can not connect to the brokers
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Yeah - or use failover...
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
On 7/9/07, Adrian Co <ac...@exist.com> wrote:
> Must be out-dated documentation. I don't think list is a valid transport
> scheme. You could try the static transport scheme.
>
> Jiang wrote:
> > I config 3 brokers . In the client code , I use uri as
> > "list:tcp://localhost:61616,tcp://192.168.1.110:61616,tcp://192.168.1.112:61616"
> > . But when I start the code , it throw "Transport scheme NOT recognized:
> > [list]" . From the docs, I find list: is valid for multi brokers connection
> > . Why ?
> > Any help is welcome .
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Re: why can not connect to the brokers
Posted by Adrian Co <ac...@exist.com>.
Must be out-dated documentation. I don't think list is a valid transport
scheme. You could try the static transport scheme.
Jiang wrote:
> I config 3 brokers . In the client code , I use uri as
> "list:tcp://localhost:61616,tcp://192.168.1.110:61616,tcp://192.168.1.112:61616"
> . But when I start the code , it throw "Transport scheme NOT recognized:
> [list]" . From the docs, I find list: is valid for multi brokers connection
> . Why ?
> Any help is welcome .
>
> thanks
>
>
>