Re: Non-persistent is a little bit slower than persistent

[jandeclercq <ja...@alsic.be>]

Hey,

When using kahadb, it is a mix of the best of both technologies
1. persistent writing to disk (slow)
2. remember everything in memory (fast)

I don't really know the in depths details why non persistent are slower. 
But in my point of view, persistent messages should be at least as fast as
non persistent.

Here it is explained a bit better then I can.
http://fusesource.com/docs/esb/4.3.1/amq_persistence/index.html?url=http://fusesource.com/docs/esb/4.3.1/amq_persistence/KahaDB-Concurrent.html


I didn't figured out in depth why yet, but this link gives you a good idea
of where to start to look.

Hope this helps you..

--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Non-persistent-is-a-little-bit-slower-than-persistent-tp3346537p3382498.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.