[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis

A slight correction on Tims respone. 
Artemis is able to page to disks, messages that cannot be kept in memory. It does by default try keep messages in memory for performance but it is not limited by this.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Tim Bain <tbain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 08/12/2018  02:01  (GMT+00:00) To: ActiveMQ Users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis 
The core of the Artemis codebase is the HornetQ code that was donated to
the Apache foundation several years ago, so both codebases have had their
cores tested in production environments, and they've both had ongoing
development and bug fixes, which always opens up the possibility of
introducing new bugs. So I don't think the relevant distinction is between
the maturity of the code bases, but what you're looking to get from the
products, and what you can expect from their future development lifecycle.

In general, I would say to use Artemis unless you have a reason to use ActiveMQ
5, because as time goes on, more and more development will focus on Artemis
and less on ActiveMQ 5. The one limitation of Artemis that I'm aware of is
that all unconsumed messages must fit in memory in the broker, so if you
are unable to work within that limitation, you would probably want to use
ActiveMQ 5. Otherwise, I would recommend using Artemis, as it's the
presumed future path for ActiveMQ development.


On Dec 7, 2018 1:33 PM, "Francesco Nigro" <nigro.fra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AFAIK Artemis has been used with success in production in many cases: I
just think that is a matter of what you search in a broker.
Given that I'm biased toward performance I know what Artemis can deliver
from this pov and I can say that there is no really match (with many other
brokers) related to this aspect :)

Il giorno ven 7 dic 2018, 20:23 trevdyck <trevdyck@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:

> From what I understand Artemis is still quite new and has not been used in
> many production environments yet. ActiveMQ has been hardened for many
> in production, so that may be something that factors into your decision.
> As for JMS2.0 you should look at whether 2.0 offers anything important
> you really need.
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html