You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by pH <ph...@gmail.com> on 2010/11/16 04:56:25 UTC
MQ architecture query
Hi guys,
I'm investigating ActiveMQ for a trial in the following scenario:
1. End-customer own ships/planes/boats (3-5 vessels) that are linked to the
HQ on land via Satellite
2. Satellite provisions on-demand datalink
3. Data will need to be sync between HQ and vessels on a regular basis
4. Satellite data charges are relatively expensive, so we need to try to
reduce it
I am thinking of
1. 1 ActiveMQ per vessel, 1 ActiveMQ at HQ (HA/failover can be implemented
later)
2. Data to be sync-ed to the other side will be placed on the local ActiveMQ
instance
3. HQ will access data on ship by connecting to ActiveMQ instance on vessel
4. Vessel will access data at HQ by connecting to ActiveMQ instance there
5. Configuring ActiveMQs to use UDP instead of TCP to save on comms overhead
(?)
Would this approach work?
1. Will using UDP help to reduce the comms overhead? Each network packet
sent (whether full or not) is charged
2. Should I skip the main MQ instance in the HQ?
Any advice / suggestions and criticisms are welcomed and needed.
Thank you very much... :)))
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/MQ-architecture-query-tp3044196p3044196.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: MQ architecture query
Posted by pH <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dejan, thank you very much!
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/MQ-architecture-query-tp3044196p3044545.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: MQ architecture query
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
Hi,
this all sounds good, except I wouldn't include UDP as it is
unreliable (as a protocol) and not sure how much would you gain as
openwire protocol is pretty much optimized.
Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac
-----------------
FuseSource - The experts in open source integration and messaging.
Email: dejanb@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/dejanb
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:56 AM, pH <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm investigating ActiveMQ for a trial in the following scenario:
> 1. End-customer own ships/planes/boats (3-5 vessels) that are linked to the
> HQ on land via Satellite
> 2. Satellite provisions on-demand datalink
> 3. Data will need to be sync between HQ and vessels on a regular basis
> 4. Satellite data charges are relatively expensive, so we need to try to
> reduce it
>
> I am thinking of
> 1. 1 ActiveMQ per vessel, 1 ActiveMQ at HQ (HA/failover can be implemented
> later)
> 2. Data to be sync-ed to the other side will be placed on the local ActiveMQ
> instance
> 3. HQ will access data on ship by connecting to ActiveMQ instance on vessel
> 4. Vessel will access data at HQ by connecting to ActiveMQ instance there
> 5. Configuring ActiveMQs to use UDP instead of TCP to save on comms overhead
> (?)
>
> Would this approach work?
> 1. Will using UDP help to reduce the comms overhead? Each network packet
> sent (whether full or not) is charged
> 2. Should I skip the main MQ instance in the HQ?
>
> Any advice / suggestions and criticisms are welcomed and needed.
>
> Thank you very much... :)))
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/MQ-architecture-query-tp3044196p3044196.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>