Re: ActiveMQ thoughts

[Hellweek <bw...@tfutures.com>]

After spending close to 2 months trying to get ActiveMQ to work reliably we
have finaly decided to give up.

If some of you remember we were planning on using ActiveMQ to distribute
pricing information for traders.  As we were not able to get past some of
the issues we have with ActiveMQ it was decided to do a MultiCast solution.

In a matter of hours we were able to replace the ActiveMQ layer with a UDP
multicast layer and our new trading system is stable.

I wish to thank the many people who tried to help get the kinks out of
ActiveMQ and I will check back in around a year to retest and evalute
ActiveMQ.

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-thoughts-tp14262131s2354p15167627.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: ActiveMQ thoughts

[Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>]

Sorry to hear that - hopefully you'll get better results next time you  
try

cheers,

Rob

On Jan 29, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Hellweek wrote:

>
> After spending close to 2 months trying to get ActiveMQ to work  
> reliably we
> have finaly decided to give up.
>
> If some of you remember we were planning on using ActiveMQ to  
> distribute
> pricing information for traders.  As we were not able to get past  
> some of
> the issues we have with ActiveMQ it was decided to do a MultiCast  
> solution.
>
> In a matter of hours we were able to replace the ActiveMQ layer with  
> a UDP
> multicast layer and our new trading system is stable.
>
> I wish to thank the many people who tried to help get the kinks out of
> ActiveMQ and I will check back in around a year to retest and evalute
> ActiveMQ.
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-thoughts-tp14262131s2354p15167627.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>