activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JDBC Persistance
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:44:09 GMT
There is a lag if using the journal based on the journal checkpoint
time; so using pure JDBC and no journal will use less disk (though be
much slower). Also there is a further lag if you are using durable
topics (since the deletion of messages is a background task). You
might want to use queues if you want more immediate deletion & freeing
of resources.

Finally using AMQStore in 4.2 should use less disk space than a JDBC database.


On 4/2/07, Ramesh Bobba <ramesh@transerainc.com> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I do want to use persistent delivery. The problem I am seeing is the
> messages from the persistent store are not being deleted fast enough. My
> disk is getting full. Is there any way to control this? Do you think
> setAsyncSend(true) will help?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Ramesh.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Strachan [mailto:james.strachan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:27 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JDBC Persistance
>
> On 4/1/07, Ramesh Bobba <ramesh@transerainc.com> wrote:
> > I have three producers producing 80K messages every 2 seconds, I have
> > three consumers subscribed as durable consumers. I am using mysql as
> > persistence. What I see is that the messages are being written to the
> > database even when all the subscribers are up.
> >
> > I thought that broker
> > only writes to the datasource if it has to.
>
> It does
>
> If you don't want persistence to take place, don't use persistent
> delivery.
> http://cwiki.apache.org/ACTIVEMQ/what-is-the-difference-between-persiste
> nt-and-non-persistent-delivery.html
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>


-- 

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Mime
View raw message