You are right, and I do prefer KahaDB due to its performance (as long as LevelDB seems to be just "beta-stable"). Such a decision needs to be made after careful consideration of the trade-offs. On the strength of our past experience some customers have much less traffic resp. no the highest performance requirements, so a journaledJdbc Adapter could help for some time.
A permanently "self-healing" KahaDB would be a huge advantage to simplify long-term operation in my point of view. Am 29.01.2016 um 14:02 schrieb Christopher Shannon: > Keep in mind that KahaDB will be significantly faster than any JDBC > persistence solution, so if you switch to JDBC than you will have a large > performance hit. > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Klaus Pittig < > klaus.pit...@futura4retail.com> wrote: > >> I agree. We also ran into several issues using LevelDB and decided to >> switch back to KahaDB as the default persistence, even if it's slower. >> Our efforts repairing LevelDB storages on many different machines were >> only with moderate success. >> >> In contrast handling problems with KahaDB is a straightforward process >> and works in most cases. To avoid even this inconvenient administrative >> task we think about switching to a journaledJdbc persistence with a >> local PostgreSQL instance or similar, because it simplifies support and >> administration (due to the available people knowing their company DBMS). >> >> >> Am 28.01.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Christopher Shannon: >>> In my opinion KahaDB is more stable at this point than LevelDB. KahaDB >>> does not seem to suffer from some of the corruption problems and other >>> issues that have been reported when using LevelDB. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, James A. Robinson < >> jim.robin...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Is KahaDB considered the more robust backing store of the two options? >>>> >>>> We just ran into a variation of >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5459 >>>> >>>> and I couldn't see any way to recover it. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>> >> >