ActiveMQ (was Re: Devel::Cover with Moose?)

[Daniel Pittman]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:10, Ruud H.G. van Tol <rvtol at isolution.nl> wrote:
> On 2011-05-25 09:19, James Laver wrote:
>> On 24 May 2011, at 06:31, Daniel Pittman wrote:
[…]
> Anyone here who used Spread recently?

I made trivial use of it in both testing and production to serve as a
collector for Apache logs.  It was very little trouble, and did the
job, but was relatively painful to expand the network since it
required restarts of the service.  The Apache log collector handled
that gracefully, but IIRC you need to specifically support it.
Performance was reasonable, but then...

I was using the 3.1 release at the time, though, so I have no idea if
4.0 or 4.1 improve on that.

> It is supposed to be faster, lower level, taking < 1% CPU.

...CPU load on the network was comparable to the load on ActiveMQ
systems under similar load.  Spread isn't really much different
otherwise in terms of either speed, or being "lower level" (in either
the sense of being better for, or worse for, that. ;)

If I had to pick a "does as little as possible" low level library, 0mq
looks like the best available choice, but it provides next to
*nothing* in terms of scaling; you have a toolkit for messaging and
get to build out the rest of the routing, scaling, persistence, etc
yourself.

Daniel
-- 
⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com
✉ Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net>
✆ Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (503) 893-2285
♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons