activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Difference between kahaPersistenceAdapter and kahaDB
Date Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:21:22 GMT
to have a guarantee that a sent message is actually on disk there
needs to be a disk sync. KahaDB does this by default, the
KahaPersistenceAdapter does not, by default it just does it on a
transaction boundary.

So KahaDB  behaves like KahaPersistenceAdapter when
enableJournalDiskSyncs="false"

On 11 November 2010 10:47, carlo.bonamico <carlo.bonamico@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Gary...
>  You suggest using KahaDB over KahaPersistenceAdapter because of more
> development activity and support.
> However, I have significant performance issues with KahaDB. From my tests,
> KahaBD performance is heavily dependent on the maximum sync rate of the
> filesystem.
> KahaPersistenceAdapter is generally faster as described.
> My questions are:
> -enableJournalDiskSyncs="false" speeds up KahaDB a lot, but, does it
> guarantee persistence of messages in all cases?
>
> -is KahaPersistenceAdapter as reliable as KahaDB?
> -does it guarantee persistence of queues? I do not need Topic durable
> subscriptions, only guaranteed delivery for queues
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Difference-between-kahaPersistenceAdapter-and-kahaDB-tp3010514p3037599.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 
http://blog.garytully.com
http://fusesource.com

Mime
View raw message