Stablest version of ActiveMQ post 4.1.2

[um...@comcast.net]

I have been using ActiveMQ 4.1.2 for a couple of years
and have had a number of problems with it. I echo the views 
of a recent post on this forum that I prefer reliability of the tool
than performance; I do not even mind losing messages, but 
I want to avoid at any cost out of memory errors, sporadic and
inexplicable termination of the broker etc.

I even hired an ActiveMQ consultant to sanitize our configuration
and found that we had not misconfigured it - there were just bugs.
Its at a stage where its serving basic needs (non-persistence of
messages, non-reliable delivery, no security, is handling barely more 
than  50 messages an hour). I dare not look at it squint-eyed, for the
fear of creating yet another unexplained outage.

I am hoping that a newer version of ActiveMQ is more reliable;
the last time I attempted to upgrade (to 5.0) was unpleasant;
there were significant memory leaks.

Could you pl advise me on the most stable, bug-free version
of ActiveMQ post 4.1.2 that I could upgrade to?

Regards,

/U

Re: Stablest version of ActiveMQ post 4.1.2

[Andreas Gies <ag...@progress.com>]

Hi there,

i will never dare to say that a software is bug free;)

This having said, the 5.3 release of the FUSE message broker (the  
PROGRESS
branded version of ActiveMQ) is pretty stable. (http://fusesource.com/products/enterprise-activemq/ 
)

If I understand your requirements correctly, you want to avoid memory  
overflows while
you would accept to loose messages. Have you considered using a system  
usage with a
memory limit combined with the option of sendFailIfNoSpace ?

That would throw an exception to the client if a message can't be sent  
due to reaching the
memory limit. That kind of keeps the memory consumption of the broker  
in certain limits.

The thing to do is handling the exception in your client correctly  
(probably by ignoring it if
you dont care for the message).

Here is an example of setting a memory usage (with very low limits as  
I wanted to trigger the behavior indicated):

      <systemUsage>
        <systemUsage sendFailIfNoSpace="true">
          <memoryUsage>
            <memoryUsage limit="100kb" />
          </memoryUsage>
          <storeUsage>
            <storeUsage limit="1mb" />
          </storeUsage>
          <tempUsage>
            <tempUsage limit="100k" />
          </tempUsage>
        </systemUsage>
      </systemUsage>


Hope that helps
Andreas


On Apr 5, 2009, at 11:37 PM, uma_rk@comcast.net wrote:

> I have been using ActiveMQ 4.1.2 for a couple of years
> and have had a number of problems with it. I echo the views
> of a recent post on this forum that I prefer reliability of the tool
> than performance; I do not even mind losing messages, but
> I want to avoid at any cost out of memory errors, sporadic and
> inexplicable termination of the broker etc.
>
> I even hired an ActiveMQ consultant to sanitize our configuration
> and found that we had not misconfigured it - there were just bugs.
> Its at a stage where its serving basic needs (non-persistence of
> messages, non-reliable delivery, no security, is handling barely more
> than  50 messages an hour). I dare not look at it squint-eyed, for the
> fear of creating yet another unexplained outage.
>
> I am hoping that a newer version of ActiveMQ is more reliable;
> the last time I attempted to upgrade (to 5.0) was unpleasant;
> there were significant memory leaks.
>
> Could you pl advise me on the most stable, bug-free version
> of ActiveMQ post 4.1.2 that I could upgrade to?
>
> Regards,
>
> /U

---
Mit freundlichen Grüssen - Kind Regards
Andreas Gies
Principal Consultant
Open Source Center of Competence

Progress Software GmbH
Agrippinawerft 26
50678 Köln

E-Mail      	agies@progress.com
Direct Line 	+49 (0)9953 980349
Mobile      	+49 (0)170 5759611
Skype        	+44 (0)20 3239 2922
Skype       	+353 (0)1 443 4971
Skype       	+1 (0)781 262 0168

http://www.progress.com
http://fusesource.com
http://open-source-adventures.blogspot.com