You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by "carlo.bonamico" <ca...@gmail.com> on 2010/11/11 09:16:44 UTC
Re: Difference between kahaPersistenceAdapter and kahaDB
Hi Gary,
thank you again for your answers... also reading the pre-release of
ActiveMQ in Action was helpful. Just a final question: is
kahaPersistenceAdapter safe for persistent queues? can it be used in a
master-slave setup?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-kahaPersistenceAdapter-and-kahaDB-tp3010514p3037363.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Difference between kahaPersistenceAdapter and kahaDB
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
to have a guarantee that a sent message is actually on disk there
needs to be a disk sync. KahaDB does this by default, the
KahaPersistenceAdapter does not, by default it just does it on a
transaction boundary.
So KahaDB behaves like KahaPersistenceAdapter when
enableJournalDiskSyncs="false"
On 11 November 2010 10:47, carlo.bonamico <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Gary...
> You suggest using KahaDB over KahaPersistenceAdapter because of more
> development activity and support.
> However, I have significant performance issues with KahaDB. From my tests,
> KahaBD performance is heavily dependent on the maximum sync rate of the
> filesystem.
> KahaPersistenceAdapter is generally faster as described.
> My questions are:
> -enableJournalDiskSyncs="false" speeds up KahaDB a lot, but, does it
> guarantee persistence of messages in all cases?
>
> -is KahaPersistenceAdapter as reliable as KahaDB?
> -does it guarantee persistence of queues? I do not need Topic durable
> subscriptions, only guaranteed delivery for queues
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-kahaPersistenceAdapter-and-kahaDB-tp3010514p3037599.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
http://blog.garytully.com
http://fusesource.com
Re: Difference between kahaPersistenceAdapter and kahaDB
Posted by "carlo.bonamico" <ca...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Gary...
You suggest using KahaDB over KahaPersistenceAdapter because of more
development activity and support.
However, I have significant performance issues with KahaDB. From my tests,
KahaBD performance is heavily dependent on the maximum sync rate of the
filesystem.
KahaPersistenceAdapter is generally faster as described.
My questions are:
-enableJournalDiskSyncs="false" speeds up KahaDB a lot, but, does it
guarantee persistence of messages in all cases?
-is KahaPersistenceAdapter as reliable as KahaDB?
-does it guarantee persistence of queues? I do not need Topic durable
subscriptions, only guaranteed delivery for queues
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-kahaPersistenceAdapter-and-kahaDB-tp3010514p3037599.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Difference between kahaPersistenceAdapter and kahaDB
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Any of the file based stores can be used in the shared-file-system
master slave setup. Use KahaDB or the AMQPersistenceAdapter, the
kahaPersistenceAdapter is old hat at this stage.
On 11 November 2010 08:16, carlo.bonamico <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
> thank you again for your answers... also reading the pre-release of
> ActiveMQ in Action was helpful. Just a final question: is
> kahaPersistenceAdapter safe for persistent queues? can it be used in a
> master-slave setup?
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-kahaPersistenceAdapter-and-kahaDB-tp3010514p3037363.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
http://blog.garytully.com
http://fusesource.com