Comments on: Do you use ActiveMQ?

By: Suresh

Suresh — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:54:17 +0000

We used activemq as part of ServiceMix ESB. ServiceMix 3.2.1 uses activemq 4.1. I can relate to the issues are you and/or your collegue is talking about with respect to activemq. There are some serious gotchas ( Internal memory – usageMemory lockup ), , synchronization issues ( client closing connections ) and HA ( Pure Master/Slave which is a joke in 4.1 as IT DOES NOT WORK. Their JIRA bug report shows that it is fixed is 5.x ) screw ups.

We can hardly have it up for a week.

By: Alicia Troul

Alicia Troul — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:15:13 +0000

My company went through the same trials and tribulations, and ended up with OpenMQ, which absolutely rocks (stable, wicked fast, etc.). It has its limitations, but the community seems more robust/open (and vaguely less arrogant) then AMQ’s.

By: The Bull

The Bull — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:55:17 +0000

I don’t see AMQP in SonicMQ’s featureset. That is a must for our needs.

By: jimslade

jimslade — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:45:41 +0000

If you have a need for performance, you should look at SonicMQ. I used to work there… product is rock-solid and I never lost a ‘bake-off’, plus they have some very cool HA technology. It does have a pricetag though. FWIW.

By: wpbarr

wpbarr — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:24:35 +0000

You might want to take a look at Joram (http://joram.objectweb.org/). When I last looked at ActiveMQ it was far too slow for our needs at large travel site.

By: Erik Weibust

Erik Weibust — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:58:03 +0000

I haven’t heard anything negative about ActiveMQ, this post might be the first. However, I COMPLETELY agree, WebSphere products make me sick, too.

By: Lari Hotari

Lari Hotari — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:35:03 +0000

The recently released ActiveMQ 5.1.0 is amazing. You could also try the “IONA Fuse Message Broker” distribution if you want better stability. ActiveMQ 5.0.0 wasn’t stable at all, it had a lot of critical problems.

By: Anders Bengtsson

Anders Bengtsson — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:38:19 +0000

We tried ActiveMQ for a project two years ago, but got burned by some bugs. After restarting one of the servers the message forwarding didn’t resume in some cases. Don’t know if that ever got solved, but I guess a lot has happened with ActiveMQ since then.
Also, the Topics implementation couldn’t deal with huge message backlogs at the time, but I think that’s supported in current versions.
Performance, i.e. throughput, seemed ok though.

By: James Strachan

James Strachan — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:31:22 +0000

BTW since 5.1 of ActiveMQ we recommend the default persistence mechanism which is crazy fast and avoids the need for a JDBC pool…

http://activemq.apache.org/amq-message-store.html

By: Rob Davies

Rob Davies — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:30:44 +0000

Thanks for the heads up – will investigate!