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 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 straightforward process > and works in most cases. To avoid even this inconvenient administrative > task we think about switching to a journaledJdbc persistence with a > local PostgreSQL instance or similar, because it simplifies support and > administration (due to the available people knowing their company DBMS). > > > Am 28.01.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Christopher Shannon: > > 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 < > jim.robin...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Is KahaDB considered the more robust backing store of the two options? > >> > >> We just ran into a variation of > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5459 > >> > >> and I couldn't see any way to recover it. > >> > >> Jim > >> > > >
