The source of my statement was the ActiveMQ to Artemis migration guide ( https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/migration/index.html), which states the following:
"The whole message journal is kept in memory and messages are dispatched directly from it. When we run out of memory, messages are paged on the producer side(before they hit the broker). Theay are stored in sequential page files in the same order as they arrived. Once the memory is freed, messages are moved from these page files into the journal. With paging working like this, messages are read from the file journal only when the broker starts up, in order to recreate this in-memory version of the journal. In this case, the journal is only read sequentially, meaning that there's no need to keep an index of messages in the journal. This is one of the main differences between ActiveMQ 5.x and Artemis." If that description isn't accurate, the migration guide needs to be updated. Tim On Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 2:06 AM michael.andre.pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid wrote: > A slight correction on Tims respone. > Artemis is able to page to disks, messages that cannot be kept in memory. > It does by default try keep messages in memory for performance but it is > not limited by this. > > > Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > -------- Original message --------From: Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> > Date: 08/12/2018 02:01 (GMT+00:00) To: ActiveMQ Users < > users@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ or Artemis > The core of the Artemis codebase is the HornetQ code that was donated to > the Apache foundation several years ago, so both codebases have had their > cores tested in production environments, and they've both had ongoing > development and bug fixes, which always opens up the possibility of > introducing new bugs. So I don't think the relevant distinction is between > the maturity of the code bases, but what you're looking to get from the > products, and what you can expect from their future development lifecycle. > > In general, I would say to use Artemis unless you have a reason to use > ActiveMQ > 5, because as time goes on, more and more development will focus on Artemis > and less on ActiveMQ 5. The one limitation of Artemis that I'm aware of is > that all unconsumed messages must fit in memory in the broker, so if you > are unable to work within that limitation, you would probably want to use > ActiveMQ 5. Otherwise, I would recommend using Artemis, as it's the > presumed future path for ActiveMQ development. > > Tim > > On Dec 7, 2018 1:33 PM, "Francesco Nigro" <nigro....@gmail.com> wrote: > > AFAIK Artemis has been used with success in production in many cases: I > just think that is a matter of what you search in a broker. > Given that I'm biased toward performance I know what Artemis can deliver > from this pov and I can say that there is no really match (with many other > brokers) related to this aspect :) > > > Il giorno ven 7 dic 2018, 20:23 trevdyck <trevd...@amazon.com> ha scritto: > > > From what I understand Artemis is still quite new and has not been used > in > > many production environments yet. ActiveMQ has been hardened for many > years > > in production, so that may be something that factors into your decision. > > > > As for JMS2.0 you should look at whether 2.0 offers anything important > that > > you really need. > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html > > >
