sers@activemq.apache.org"
> Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 3:29 PM
> To: "users@activemq.apache.org"
> Subject: [!!Mass Mail]Re: Regarding replicated DB store solutions
>
>>You probably figured this out but to be clear in my previous message in
>>the
&
er 7, 2016 at 3:29 PM
To: "users@activemq.apache.org"
Subject: [!!Mass Mail]Re: Regarding replicated DB store solutions
>You probably figured this out but to be clear in my previous message in
>the
>first paragraph I meant to say that LevelDB was "intended to be the f
You probably figured this out but to be clear in my previous message in the
first paragraph I meant to say that LevelDB was "intended to be the follow
on to KahaDB", and not "was intended to be the follow on to ActiveMQ" as it
currently states.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Christopher Shannon <
The issue with the current LevelDB implementation is that it is not
stable. There have been numerous bugs reported against it that have not
been fixed including corruption problems so it is not really usable in a
production environment. Originally it was intended to be the follow on to
ActiveMQ bu
Hi,
We need a high availability solution. To this extent I did some research on the
usage of ActiveMQ.
According to this documentation
(http://activemq.apache.org/replicated-leveldb-store.html) LevelDB store is no
longer supported.
Wasn’t LevelDB newer DB solution? Wasn’t it going to replace K
