activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ravi <exts...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Thoughts on production worthiness of 5.4 ...
Date Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:08:20 GMT
Thanks Dejan. Good to hear many people are using later versions in
production.

I'd like to hear of any  stability issues with the features of interest to
us (see below), especially master/slave + Durable Topics.

An indication of a release maturity might be useful - for example, 5.4
beta1, beta2 ... (means  still being 'soaked') 5.4 stable (means 'may not
have bleeding edge features, but has no known issues either).

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <dejan@nighttale.net> wrote:

> Hi Ravi,
>
> there has been a lot of improvements since 5.0 and many people uses
> later versions in production. I'd certainly recommend testing the
> latest release in your environment and report any potential problems
> you might find.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb
>
> Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
> ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Ravi <extsknk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have been using version 4.1.1 in production for the past several years
> > and it has been 'rock solid'.
> > Earlier we attempted to move to 5.0 and got burned badly.
> >
> > Can somebody comment on the stability/production worthiness of 5.4  for
> the
> > following features ?
> >
> > - Durable topics
> > - Virtual destination  of Topics/Queues
> > - Kaha DB
> > - Master/slave (especially ability to recover as documented by copying
> slave
> > data dir to master)
> >
> > (the concern is not about message rate, basic stability - ability to run
> for
> > months without restarts)
> >
> > Thank you
> > Ravi
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message