On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:59 PM, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, having "real" destinations come and go that quickly is definitely not > a typical use case. Agreed! > Admittedly, I have not been following the conversation > that closely, but you do seem to have done your homework. I assume > temporary destinations wouldn't suit your needs. Not really unfortunately. > Have you considered > something like Akka? I’ve looked at Akka but up until this point ActiveMQ seemed ideal. > If you have this kind of throughput, do you really > need persistence? Is each message a precious commodity or is your > application just extremely chatty? Well the advantage of persistenxw, in theory, is that if we have an outage, we can instantly recover from it without adding any latency to messages. However, it might be that I can go with all in -memory if we can rebuild the queue within 5 minutes. I’m totally fine with that. This is my mitigation plan now actually. I’m going to be running with an in-memory broker and then attempting to rebuild the queue as quickly as possible. > I'll try to dig through the > conversation... > Appreciate the feedback.! -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com … or check out my Google+ profile <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> <http://spinn3r.com>
