activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>
Subject Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka?
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2017 05:20:17 GMT
Were you comparing to ActiveMQ 5.x or to Artemis (or both)?

Another difference between Kafka and (I believe) both flavors of ActiveMQ
is that Kafka doesn't remove consumed messages, doesn't allow out-of-order
message acknowledgements (so if you want that, you have to implement it
yourself), and simply maintains consumer state as a number that is the
index of the message that consumer is currently on (so there's no need to
write an ack message to disk for each original message). Also, Kafka and
ActiveMQ Artemis support clusters of brokers for horizontal scalability,
whereas ActiveMQ 5.x doesn't. (But I've found that all aspects of
rebalancing partitions across additional brokers are harder, more manual,
and/or less fully-featured than they should be, so that ability of Kafka's
comes at a price.)

On Jun 2, 2017 10:51 AM, "nigro_franz" <nigro.fra@gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone has summoned me :)
> I can add to set journal-datasync to false to make the Artemis journal
> behaviour to be the same of the default of Kafka (more here:
> https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/2.1.0/persistence.html)
> Considering to have enough memory it enables the persistence to be
> effectively free :)
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/why-AvtiveMq-is-slowly-than-Kafka-tp4726911p4726951.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

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