ichter<mailto:edsonrich...@hotmail.com>
Enviado:quinta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2022 11:22
Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
Assunto: RES: Is Artemis Production Ready?
*Memory stable at 11.2GB VIRT and 3.8GB RES.
Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink
vemq.apache.org>
Assunto: RES: Is Artemis Production Ready?
Damn, my measure was wrong. We are producing/consuming average 1 million
messages per day (data collected for a week) – average 700 per second. Server
never shows more than 5% of CPU, and memory is stable at .
No high usage, and server behav
mbro de 2022 07:10
Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
Assunto: Re: Is Artemis Production Ready?
>
> 5k / second is fairly low IMO. But you have to say how you are producing
and consuming ?
If you create a producer with an async callback (to answer yo
e or securely!
> -Original Message-
> From: Clebert Suconic
> Sent: 29 September 2022 01:29
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is Artemis Production Ready?
>
> *** Warning: This email originated from outside of Flooid’s email system.
> DO NOT CLICK LINKS o
R.
>
>
> Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> para Windows
>
> De: Clebert Suconic<mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> Enviado:quarta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2022 18:50
> Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apa
,
ER.
Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> para Windows
De: Clebert Suconic<mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Enviado:quarta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2022 18:50
Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
Assunto: Re: Is Artemi
publishing a benchmark is a game without end.
It's always possible to get a particular usecase or tweak things in a
way that will move the benchmark in any direction you want.
the best you can do is to measure the use case you want to achieve
yourself. I have spent a lot of time with benchmark
Hi,
/"the reporting performance of Artemis is significantly higher than
Classic"/
I'm very interested about such of reporting performance between Artemis
and AMQ.
Is it possible to share?
Regards,
François
On 26/09/2022 16:40, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
Couple minor corrections for anyone e
Couple minor corrections for anyone else reading later..
On Mon, 26 Sept 2022 at 14:15, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
>
> the major bit from the release (2) only tells you about the API. Currently
> version 2 will be version 2 as long as we keep the API compatible with
> previous releases. (When we make
; -Original Message-----
> From: Clebert Suconic
> Sent: 26 September 2022 14:15
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is Artemis Production Ready?
>
> *** Warning: This email originated from outside of Flooid’s email system. DO
> NOT CLICK LINKS or ATTACH
the major bit from the release (2) only tells you about the API. Currently
version 2 will be version 2 as long as we keep the API compatible with
previous releases. (When we make it 3.0 it means we can remove a few
deprecated methods and other stuff)
The second bit, 2.26.0 (26), means we had ** T
Although Artemis is at Release 2, I cannot find a direct statement in the
online documentation that Artemis is production ready. In contrast, this page
suggests that Artemis is not production ready
https://activemq.apache.org/activemq-artemis-roadmap.
Naturally, I must provide evidence that Art
12 matches
Mail list logo
