You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by COURTAULT Francois <Fr...@gemalto.com> on 2018/12/07 09:21:10 UTC
ActiveMQ or Artemis
Hello,
I want to use a JMS broker. So I have 2 options: Active MQ or ActiveMQ Artemis.
Reading some infos:
* ActiveMQ & ActiveMQ Artemis support the same protocols: Openwire, Stomp, AMQP and MQTT but maybe not the same versions of those ones ?
* Active MQ is JMS 1.1 whereas ActiveMQ Artemis is JMS 2.0 or 1.1.
* ActiveMQ Artemis seems to be the future of ActiveMQ.
So, according to you, what is the best choice ?
Best Regards.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis
Posted by Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>.
The source of my statement was the ActiveMQ to Artemis migration guide (
https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/migration/index.html), which states the
following:
"The whole message journal is kept in memory and messages are dispatched
directly from it. When we run out of memory, messages are paged on the
producer side(before they hit the broker). Theay are stored in sequential
page files in the same order as they arrived. Once the memory is freed,
messages are moved from these page files into the journal. With paging
working like this, messages are read from the file journal only when the
broker starts up, in order to recreate this in-memory version of the
journal. In this case, the journal is only read sequentially, meaning that
there's no need to keep an index of messages in the journal. This is one of
the main differences between ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis."
If that description isn't accurate, the migration guide needs to be
updated.
Tim
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 2:06 AM michael.andre.pearce
<michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid wrote:
> 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 <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>
> Date: 08/12/2018 02:01 (GMT+00:00) To: ActiveMQ Users <
> users@activemq.apache.org> 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.
>
> Tim
>
> On Dec 7, 2018 1:33 PM, "Francesco Nigro" <ni...@gmail.com> 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 <tr...@amazon.com> 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
> years
> > 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
> that
> > you really need.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from:
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
> >
>
Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis
Posted by "michael.andre.pearce" <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
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 <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> Date: 08/12/2018 02:01 (GMT+00:00) To: ActiveMQ Users <us...@activemq.apache.org> 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.
Tim
On Dec 7, 2018 1:33 PM, "Francesco Nigro" <ni...@gmail.com> 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 <tr...@amazon.com> 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
years
> 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
that
> you really need.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>
Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis
Posted by Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>.
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.
Tim
On Dec 7, 2018 1:33 PM, "Francesco Nigro" <ni...@gmail.com> 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 <tr...@amazon.com> 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
years
> 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
that
> you really need.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>
Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis
Posted by Francesco Nigro <ni...@gmail.com>.
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 <tr...@amazon.com> 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 years
> 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 that
> you really need.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>
Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis
Posted by trevdyck <tr...@amazon.com>.
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 years
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 that
you really need.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html