Were you comparing to ActiveMQ 5.x or to Artemis (or both)? Another difference between Kafka and (I believe) both flavors of ActiveMQ is that Kafka doesn't remove consumed messages, doesn't allow out-of-order message acknowledgements (so if you want that, you have to implement it yourself), and simply maintains consumer state as a number that is the index of the message that consumer is currently on (so there's no need to write an ack message to disk for each original message). Also, Kafka and ActiveMQ Artemis support clusters of brokers for horizontal scalability, whereas ActiveMQ 5.x doesn't. (But I've found that all aspects of rebalancing partitions across additional brokers are harder, more manual, and/or less fully-featured than they should be, so that ability of Kafka's comes at a price.)
On Jun 2, 2017 10:51 AM, "nigro_franz" <nigro....@gmail.com> wrote: > Someone has summoned me :) > I can add to set journal-datasync to false to make the Artemis journal > behaviour to be the same of the default of Kafka (more here: > https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/2.1.0/persistence.html) > Considering to have enough memory it enables the persistence to be > effectively free :) > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/why-AvtiveMq-is-slowly-than-Kafka-tp4726911p4726951.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
