Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

That message appears to have been delayed by several years. Lest anyone get confused by the recency of the timestamp, LevelDB is no longer supported within ActiveMQ, and anyone who chooses to use it as the persistent store should be prepared to debug and fix problems without assistance from the mai

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

The two stores are similar in that they both utilize an index to track the location and state of messages written into a Journal. The differences lay in the way in which the index is implemented among other things. LevelDB is a slightly faster index than KahaDB and can provide somewhat better pe

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

Hello, Informative article. Thanks a lot for sharing such nice information here. Regards * Buy Generic Levitra * -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Kahadb-vs-Leveldb-vs-Replciated-Leveldb-Performance-Result

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

I would love to collect some more details about this matter. It is a very nice post and i am highly thankful to you for sharing these details with us. Keep it up. See more at: http://www.angelmeds.com/ -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Kahadb-vs-Leveldb-vs-R

Re: KahaDB vs LevelDB

I've never used any of the three (my use cases have always been for non-persistent messages because we wanted speed and were willing to accept losing messages if the broker crashed), but based on the past year and a half of monitoring the mailing list, I agree with Chris's assessments. JDBC is lit

Re: KahaDB vs LevelDB

You are right, and I do prefer KahaDB due to its performance (as long as LevelDB seems to be just "beta-stable"). Such a decision needs to be made after careful consideration of the trade-offs. On the strength of our past experience some customers have much less traffic resp. no the highest perform

Re: KahaDB vs LevelDB

Keep in mind that KahaDB will be significantly faster than any JDBC persistence solution, so if you switch to JDBC than you will have a large performance hit. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Klaus Pittig < klaus.pit...@futura4retail.com> wrote: > I agree. We also ran into several issues using Le

Re: KahaDB vs LevelDB

I agree. We also ran into several issues using LevelDB and decided to switch back to KahaDB as the default persistence, even if it's slower. Our efforts repairing LevelDB storages on many different machines were only with moderate success. In contrast handling problems with KahaDB is a straightfor

Re: KahaDB vs LevelDB

In my opinion KahaDB is more stable at this point than LevelDB. KahaDB does not seem to suffer from some of the corruption problems and other issues that have been reported when using LevelDB. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, James A. Robinson wrote: > Is KahaDB considered the more robust back

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

god. the performance of replicated levelDB seems horrible here. On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:19 PM, khandelwalanuj wrote: > > I have done performance testing for kahadb, leveldb and replication > leveldb. > Details: > > *Scenario: * > > ActiveMQ : 5.10 > > Machine : Unix > > I tested performance by

Re: [Kahadb vs Leveldb vs Replciated Leveldb] Performance Results

the difference between kahadb and leveldb stores is really only visible when there are multiple competing consumers and producers. Both need to persist messages to a journal so they will both be disk bound for writes/sends. kahadb has a single index lock that becomes a bottleneck for adds and acks.