there has been a bunch of work in that area for 5.10 so my first
suggestion is to give a 5.10-SNAPSHOT a whirl. If that shows the same
behaviour we can get on the job of sorting out what the problem is.
A fresh snapshot was minted today -
http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/5.10-SNAPSHOT/apache-activemq-5.10-20140325.181704-38-bin.tar.gz
On 25 March 2014 17:57, Oleg Dulin <oleg.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary:
>
> I just tried to use 5.9 with replicated levelDB and my test failed
> epically...
>
> The specific problem I have is that after about 1700 messages the whole
> thing slows down to a crawl. It doesn't seem to be the case if I am
> using plain leveldb, but when using replication I come across problems.
>
> Is there some configuration I am missing ? This is all there is to it:
>
> 94 <persistenceAdapter>
> 95 <replicatedLevelDB
> 96 directory="${activemq.data}"
> 97 replicas="3"
> 98 bind="tcp://192.168.7.107:3201"
> 99 zkAddress="127.0.0.1:2181"
> 100 zkPassword="password"
> 101 zkPath="/activemq/leveldb-stores"
> 102 sync="quorum_mem"
> 103 />
> 104 </persistenceAdapter>
>
>
>
> On 2013-10-22 19:51:43 +0000, Gary Tully said:
>
>> true but in fact, the scheduler has its own 'home grown' kahadb like
>> store - and really needs to be layered over the existing persistence
>> adapters - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3758 - on the
>> todo list for 5.10
>>
>> On 22 October 2013 17:30, Christian Posta <christian.po...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a separate store for scheduled messages.
>>> KahaDB is implemented.
>>>
>>> There is no impl for leveldb yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does level db have support for that scheduled persistent store?
>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/delay-and-schedule-message-delivery.html
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I am mistaking or remembering wrong that the scheduler has a
>>>> separate store from the regular store for its scheduled messages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> of the ~3k unit tests - many use the default store and we have not
>>>>> switched the default store. Until we do, and work through any issues
>>>>> we won't know for sure. We plan to do that before we make it the
>>>>> default.
>>>>> The only known caveat atm is priority support, levelDb does not
>>>>> respect JMS priority in the same way as kahaDB or JDBC does.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 October 2013 15:25, Paul Gale <paul.n.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Per Claus Ibsen's blog post:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Over time level db is planned to be default out of the box persistent
>>>>>> store, instead of the current kahadb store. Though we are not there
>>>>>> yet, so kahadb is still the default store."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does "we are not there yet" mean? What are the caveats regarding
>>>>>> LevelDB usage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Copious detail is much appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>> -----------------
>>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> Email: cib...@redhat.com
>>>> Twitter: davsclaus
>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Christian Posta*
>>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>>> twitter: @christianposta
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Oleg Dulin
> http://www.olegdulin.com
>
>
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
