ichter<mailto:edsonrich...@hotmail.com>
Enviado:quinta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2022 11:22
Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
Assunto: RES: Is Artemis Production Ready?
*Memory stable at 11.2GB VIRT and 3.8GB RES.
Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink
vemq.apache.org>
Assunto: RES: Is Artemis Production Ready?
Damn, my measure was wrong. We are producing/consuming average 1 million
messages per day (data collected for a week) – average 700 per second. Server
never shows more than 5% of CPU, and memory is stable at .
No high usage, and server behav
mbro de 2022 07:10
Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
Assunto: Re: Is Artemis Production Ready?
>
> 5k / second is fairly low IMO. But you have to say how you are producing
and consuming ?
If you create a producer with an async callback (to answer yo
securely!
> -Original Message-
> From: Clebert Suconic
> Sent: 29 September 2022 01:29
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is Artemis Production Ready?
>
> *** Warning: This email originated from outside of Flooid’s email system.
> DO NOT CLICK LINKS or
t;
>
> Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> para Windows
>
> De: Clebert Suconic<mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
> Enviado:quarta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2022 18:50
> Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.o
,
ER.
Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> para Windows
De: Clebert Suconic<mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Enviado:quarta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2022 18:50
Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
Assunto: Re: Is Artemi
publishing a benchmark is a game without end.
It's always possible to get a particular usecase or tweak things in a
way that will move the benchmark in any direction you want.
the best you can do is to measure the use case you want to achieve
yourself. I have spent a lot of time with
Hi,
/"the reporting performance of Artemis is significantly higher than
Classic"/
I'm very interested about such of reporting performance between Artemis
and AMQ.
Is it possible to share?
Regards,
François
On 26/09/2022 16:40, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
Couple minor corrections for anyone
Couple minor corrections for anyone else reading later..
On Mon, 26 Sept 2022 at 14:15, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
>
> the major bit from the release (2) only tells you about the API. Currently
> version 2 will be version 2 as long as we keep the API compatible with
> previous releases. (When we
> -Original Message-----
> From: Clebert Suconic
> Sent: 26 September 2022 14:15
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is Artemis Production Ready?
>
> *** Warning: This email originated from outside of Flooid’s email system. DO
> NOT CLICK LINKS or ATTACH
the major bit from the release (2) only tells you about the API. Currently
version 2 will be version 2 as long as we keep the API compatible with
previous releases. (When we make it 3.0 it means we can remove a few
deprecated methods and other stuff)
The second bit, 2.26.0 (26), means we had **
Although Artemis is at Release 2, I cannot find a direct statement in the
online documentation that Artemis is production ready. In contrast, this page
suggests that Artemis is not production ready
https://activemq.apache.org/activemq-artemis-roadmap.
Naturally, I must provide evidence that
architectural model up and running so I
>>> can
>>> refine the routing and security requirements.
>>>
>>> btw when will the 2.0.1 release be out?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Artemis-production-ready-tp4725363p4725618.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
--
Clebert Suconic
;
>> But the final method is still an open question.
>>
>> I'm still working on getting the architectural model up and running so I
>> can
>> refine the routing and security requirements.
>>
>> btw when will the 2.0.1 release be out?
>>
>>
still an open question.
>
> I'm still working on getting the architectural model up and running so I
> can
> refine the routing and security requirements.
>
> btw when will the 2.0.1 release be out?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in c
.nabble.com/Artemis-production-ready-tp4725363p4725618.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
g]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:49 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Artemis production ready?
>
> When you say "across the pond" what exactly are you referring to? Also, when
> you say you're going to run two 2-node clusters wouldn't that just be
]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:49 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Artemis production ready?
When you say "across the pond" what exactly are you referring to? Also, when
you say you're going to run two 2-node clusters wouldn't that just be a 4-node
cluster?
Justin
nt: Friday, April 28, 2017 4:26:10 PM
Subject: Re: Artemis production ready?
Thanks everyone for the responses that helps.
For the support model we have been running ActiveMQ in production for 4
years I'm very happy with the performance. I know there are several 3rd
parties that if I need to add
up 2-2 node clusters and connecting them across the pond
and stress test the solution.
Mike
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Artemis-production-ready-tp4725363p4725368.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
28, 2017 3:01:45 PM
Subject: Artemis production ready?
Is Artemis production ready?
I have ActiveMQ 5.10 in production today but our infrastructure is moving to
AWS and global ( US and Europe).
I would like to upgrade from a single on prem cluster to a 2 failover
cluster model with a netw
ing. But I wouldn't release something under Apache where I
> wouldn't mean production ready.
>
>
> For 2.0 there will be a 2.1 next week. Very safe.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:13 PM mtod <m...@thetods.net> wrote:
>
>> Is Artemis production ready?
>>
&
I
wouldn't mean production ready.
For 2.0 there will be a 2.1 next week. Very safe.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:13 PM mtod <m...@thetods.net> wrote:
> Is Artemis production ready?
>
> I have ActiveMQ 5.10 in production today but our infrastructure is moving
> to
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
