activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Dulin <oleg.du...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LevelDB in ActiveMQ 5.9.0
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:57:10 GMT
Gary:

I just tried to use 5.9 with replicated levelDB and my test failed epically...

The specific problem I have is that after about 1700 messages the whole
thing slows down to a crawl. It doesn't seem to be the case if I am
using plain leveldb, but when using replication I come across problems.

Is there some configuration I am missing ? This is all there is to it:

 94         <persistenceAdapter>
 95             <replicatedLevelDB
 96                     directory="${activemq.data}"
 97                     replicas="3"
 98                     bind="tcp://192.168.7.107:3201"
 99                     zkAddress="127.0.0.1:2181"
100                     zkPassword="password"
101                     zkPath="/activemq/leveldb-stores"
102                     sync="quorum_mem"
103                     />
104         </persistenceAdapter>


On 2013-10-22 19:51:43 +0000, Gary Tully said:

> true but in fact, the scheduler has its own 'home grown' kahadb like
> store - and really needs to be layered over the existing persistence
> adapters - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3758 - on the
> todo list for 5.10
> 
> On 22 October 2013 17:30, Christian Posta 
> <christian.posta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a separate store for scheduled messages.
>> KahaDB is implemented.
>> 
>> There is no impl for leveldb yet.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Claus Ibsen 
>> <claus.ibsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Does level db have support for that scheduled persistent store?
>>> http://activemq.apache.org/delay-and-schedule-message-delivery.html
>>> 
>>> Or maybe I am mistaking or remembering wrong that the scheduler has a
>>> separate store from the regular store for its scheduled messages.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Gary Tully 
>>> <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> of the ~3k unit tests - many use the default store and we have not
>>>> switched the default store. Until we do, and work through any issues
>>>> we won't know for sure. We plan to do that before we make it the
>>>> default.
>>>> The only known caveat atm is priority support, levelDb does not
>>>> respect JMS priority in the same way as kahaDB or JDBC does.
>>>> 
>>>> On 22 October 2013 15:25, Paul Gale 
>>>> <paul.n.gale@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Per Claus Ibsen's blog post:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Over time level db is planned to be default out of the box persistent
>>>>> store, instead of the current kahadb store. Though we are not there
>>>>> yet, so kahadb is still the default store."
>>>>> 
>>>>> What does "we are not there yet" mean? What are the caveats regarding
>>>>> LevelDB usage?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Copious detail is much appreciated.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just wondering.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Paul
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> http://redhat.com
>>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> -----------------
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> Email: cibsen@redhat.com
>>> Twitter: davsclaus
>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *Christian Posta*
>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>> twitter: @christianposta


-- 
Regards,
Oleg Dulin
http://www.olegdulin.com



Mime
View raw message