Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 36325 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2007 13:35:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Dec 2007 13:35:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 63328 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2007 13:34:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 63003 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2007 13:34:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 62967 invoked by uid 99); 12 Dec 2007 13:34:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:34:54 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:34:32 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J2RjP-0007mU-9o for users@activemq.apache.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:34:35 -0800 Message-ID: <14295128.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:34:35 -0800 (PST) From: Hellweek To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ thoughts In-Reply-To: <475F1463.8050409@opera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: bwinslow@tfutures.com References: <14262131.post@talk.nabble.com> <475F1463.8050409@opera.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I will examine this option today. Thanks for the heads up. Jonathan Share wrote: > > Hellweek wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I know what I am about to post will upset a few people, however I think >> it >> is important that I document my experience with ActiveMQ in the hopes >> that >> others like me can have an understanding of the issues that you will >> face. >> >> A little history. >> >> I am not new to Open Source projects, have been involved in them and have >> sponsored the use of open source for many years. >> >> I have been working with various message brokers for a few years. My >> first >> experience was with TIBCO EMS. Needless to say I was very impressed with >> the stability and functionality of this fine EMS. Next I had the >> opportunity to work with Sonic EMS. Again I was impressed with this >> product >> and was even happier with its low cost of ownership. >> >> Over the last 6 weeks it has been my job to evaluate for our Trading firm >> an >> internal messaging system. We wanted to use a EMS solution for >> dissemination of pricing data to our in-house applications as well as >> external clients of ours. The messaging systems we are evaluating. >> TIBCO >> EMS, MSMQ 3.0, SONIC EMS, ACTIVEMQ 4.1.1 or ActieMQ 5.0. >> >> How did each product fair? >> 1. Tibco EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance >> tests. >> 2. MSMQ don't even get me started with this POS. >> 3. SONIC EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance >> tests. >> 4. ActiveMQ can not make it past any stress tests. See issues below for >> an >> understanding of what we saw. >> > > I don't see JBossMessaging in this list, is this not also a reasonably > mature option? > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-thoughts-tp14262131s2354p14295128.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.