Outgoing queues are better than incoming for performance...
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: Rene Kluwen
To: 'Alexander Malysh'
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues
True… As I already stated earlier, I think the best setup is the way it is
now already. So in that way, I agree with you.
The queues that I implemented are for academic purposes. Some people on the
list reported bad performance. So I wanted to check if other implementations
(i.e. with queues) give better performance results.
== Rene
From: Alexander Malysh [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Alexander Malysh
Sent: Wednesday, 25 August, 2010 13:56
To: Rene Kluwen
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Open smppbox queues -> priority queues
Hi Rene,
as I already said, I don't think you need any queue. bearerbox implements
already queuing for you.
And with queuing you have to wait for ack anyway because you may not be able
to handle temp. nacks
with DLR approach.
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
Am 24.08.2010 um 17:00 schrieb Rene Kluwen:
Here again another patch, which uses priority queues.
Looking for a way to come up with representative performance figures so we
can decide which implementation is best.
== Rene
<smppbox_prioqueues_2.patch>
