On 27 May 2011 02:58, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 05:25:01PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
>
>> Unless things have changed dramatically ActiveMQ has many, many features
>> pretty much all poorly documented in the typical ASF/Java project
>> fashion (i.e
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 05:25:01PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> Unless things have changed dramatically ActiveMQ has many, many features
> pretty much all poorly documented in the typical ASF/Java project
> fashion (i.e a poorly maintained wiki referencing multiple versions of
>
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 05:25:01PM +0100, me said:
> My experience is a few years old and it's very possible things have
> changed now
Apparently not
http://goodstuff.im/activemq-not-ready-for-prime-time
Money quote:
"I recommended ActiveMQ to a client [...] (and) I
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:18:27PM +1000, Toby Wintermute said:
> By the way.. how are you finding ActiveMQ, especially when interacting
> with it from Perl?
My experience is a few years old and it's very possible things have
changed now but, given a choice between working with Act
On 26/05/11 01:26, Daniel Pittman wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:55, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Anyone here who used Spread recently?
[…]
If I had to pick a "does as little as possible" low level library, 0mq
looks like the best available choice, but it provides next to
*nothing* in terms
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:55, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
> On 2011-05-25 19:33, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:10, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-25 09:19, James Laver wrote:
On 24 May 2011, at 06:31, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>>> Anyone here who used Spread recentl
CPU.
...CPU load on the network was comparable to the load on ActiveMQ
systems under similar load. Spread isn't really much different
otherwise in terms of either speed, or being "lower level" (in either
the sense of being better for, or worse for, that. ;)
I still expect it to be l
1 release at the time, though, so I have no idea if
4.0 or 4.1 improve on that.
> It is supposed to be faster, lower level, taking < 1% CPU.
...CPU load on the network was comparable to the load on ActiveMQ
systems under similar load. Spread isn't really much different
otherwise in te
rks and clustering. Rabbit is no where near prime
> time for that yet.
That is pretty much it: I would absolutely recommend RabbitMQ if you
don't need to scale, but ActiveMQ is the only robust choice I found if
you do need those things. (For some values of clustering, obviously,
given the E
sonal experience of using ActiveMQ is "don't: it'll cause you headache after
headache". The same could be said of RabbitMQ, but we were doing some fairly
tediously complicated stuff there (stuff that I believe would be impossible under
ActiveMQ). Having watched people fight
t; My personal experience of using ActiveMQ is "don't: it'll cause you
> headache after headache".
I don't do much with Net::STOMP (but it works for my basic cases) but we do
quite a lot with multi-dc resilient broker networks with clients in Ruby
and Java (and some perl)
On 25 May 2011, at 03:57, Toby Wintermute wrote:
>
> Quickly updating this -- further investigation shows that ActiveMQ's
> behaviour is to take any ACK to mean you're acknowledging everything
> sent so far. If you don't ACK anything, or the recent things, then
> it'll happily store and resend th
On 24 May 2011, at 06:31, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> It is, presently, the best of the options out there in terms of scale
You mean apart from RabbitMQ? Rabbit is also the most full-featured of any of
the free message queues I've come across.
My personal experience of using ActiveMQ i
On 24 May 2011 19:53, Toby Wintermute wrote:
> On 24 May 2011 15:18, Toby Wintermute wrote:
>> On 23 May 2011 21:07, Peter Edwards wrote:
>>> Back to fighting with ActiveMQ. Feh.
>>
>> By the way.. how are you finding ActiveMQ, especially when interacting
>>
Actually we are running ActiveMQ 5.4.0 in production although latest is
5.4.2 on that branch and 5.5.0 is now also available.
http://activemq.apache.org/
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12315623
Yet more "Java leaking memory" bugfix
On 24 May 2011, at 06:18, Toby Wintermute wrote:
> On 23 May 2011 21:07, Peter Edwards wrote:
>> Back to fighting with ActiveMQ. Feh.
> By the way.. how are you finding ActiveMQ, especially when interacting
> with it from Perl?
AFAICS, it seems to work best through the STOMP supp
> > By the way.. how are you finding ActiveMQ, especially when interacting
> > with it from Perl?
>
>
I'm using it from Net::Stomp which had issues but now (version 0.40 on)
works fine for us.
Historically, ActiveMQ had problems with memory leaks though 5.3 works fine
On 24 May 2011 15:18, Toby Wintermute wrote:
> On 23 May 2011 21:07, Peter Edwards wrote:
>> Back to fighting with ActiveMQ. Feh.
>
> By the way.. how are you finding ActiveMQ, especially when interacting
> with it from Perl?
Answering my own question a bit here, but I have
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 22:18, Toby Wintermute wrote:
> On 23 May 2011 21:07, Peter Edwards wrote:
>> Back to fighting with ActiveMQ. Feh.
>
> By the way.. how are you finding ActiveMQ, especially when interacting
> with it from Perl?
FWIW, we find it scales fairly eff
On 23 May 2011 21:07, Peter Edwards wrote:
> Back to fighting with ActiveMQ. Feh.
By the way.. how are you finding ActiveMQ, especially when interacting
with it from Perl?
I've been recommended to use it for a project at work, but I don't
think the recommender has actually used i
Hi everyone; apologies for being vaguely on-topic. We're having fun with
ActiveMQ and messages where the Net::Stomp frame reaches 4096 characters.
Although it's quite wordy, the internal investigation below describes the
problem far better than I could manage at this time on a Monday.
21 matches
Mail list logo
