On 18/09/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Feel free to peek at the ActiveMQ message store implementations. this may be an area where our projects can cooperate.
Cooperation on this sounds like an excellent idea. Also very timely since I am about to look again at our persistence implementation to implement flow-to-disk and reduce our memory footprint (which is nasty at the moment - I will raise a jira describing it in detail). Does ActiveMQ do flow to disk?
We have implemented JDBC based message store implementations that do batch operations. We have also implemented a message store filter that uses a journal like HOWL to do fast/concurrent syncs to a log and then do async checkpoints in batches to a journal.
I presume that you did the journal because the JDBC performance on its own was not good enough?
We have also started a BDB like file based implementation optimized for the messaging use cases that is still in development. Some of the things we still need to do to our implementations is add better cursoring interfaces.. perhaps that some work we can do together?
Yes, I will take a look at the ActiveMQ implementation in the next couple of days - you may be more sophisticated than us already though! Have you benchmarked your different implementations? We have got the IBM JMS Performance harness running against Qpid to help us analyse the impact of our changes. RG
