Hi!
IBM has recently released a "commissioned research" whitepaper: Edison
Group's whitepaper "IBM WebSphere MQ 7.5 versus Apache ActiveMQ 5.9:
Failover, Transactional Integrity and Administration"
<http://theedison.com/pdf/Edison_IBM_WebSphere_MQ_vs_ActiveMQ_White_Paper.pdf>
Obviously, such pay-research is not neutral. However, some points are raised
in it, and I wonder whether the AMQ devs and community have any reaction or
response to this?
The highlights pushed by IBM:
/“ActiveMQ and WebSphere MQ both meet basic messaging requirements. However,
customers in enterprise environments that need high availability and robust
failover should seriously consider WebSphere MQ for the following reasons:
Failover: ActiveMQ lost or duplicated messages during “power outage” and
“network failure” scenarios. This is unacceptable in enterprise
environments.
Documentation: IBM’s documentation was far more complete and up-to-date than
Apache’s, especially with respect to configuration, management, API
documentation, and advanced configurations such as clustering, load
balancing and high availability.
Performance: In persistent tests, WebSphere MQ performed 60 to 90 percent
faster with messages ranging from 256 bytes to 1MB.
Transaction Management: A major distinction between the two systems was the
ease of managing transactions: whereas native WebSphere MQ capabilities
allowed us to manage transaction between the database and the messaging
server. ActiveMQ requires an external application server with XA support to
control 2PC transactions.
Administration: ActiveMQ’s web console provides very limited functionality.
For many basic and most of the advanced functions, such as editing queues or
changing maximum message size users have to manually edit configuration
files. Moreover, ActiveMQ requires a unique URL and separate browser window
for each broker, while the WebSphere MQ Explorer allows users to administer
multiple brokers from a single interface.
If high availability, reliability, usability, thorough documentation, and
platform compatibility are NOT important, ActiveMQ may be a good platform.
But for enterprise customers with reliability needs, WebSphere MQ is the
superior choice.”/
IBM has recently released a "commissioned research" whitepaper: Edison
Group's whitepaper "IBM WebSphere MQ 7.5 versus Apache ActiveMQ 5.9:
Failover, Transactional Integrity and Administration"
<http://theedison.com/pdf/Edison_IBM_WebSphere_MQ_vs_ActiveMQ_White_Paper.pdf>
Obviously, such pay-research is not neutral. However, some points are raised
in it, and I wonder whether the AMQ devs and community have any reaction or
response to this?
The highlights pushed by IBM:
/“ActiveMQ and WebSphere MQ both meet basic messaging requirements. However,
customers in enterprise environments that need high availability and robust
failover should seriously consider WebSphere MQ for the following reasons:
Failover: ActiveMQ lost or duplicated messages during “power outage” and
“network failure” scenarios. This is unacceptable in enterprise
environments.
Documentation: IBM’s documentation was far more complete and up-to-date than
Apache’s, especially with respect to configuration, management, API
documentation, and advanced configurations such as clustering, load
balancing and high availability.
Performance: In persistent tests, WebSphere MQ performed 60 to 90 percent
faster with messages ranging from 256 bytes to 1MB.
Transaction Management: A major distinction between the two systems was the
ease of managing transactions: whereas native WebSphere MQ capabilities
allowed us to manage transaction between the database and the messaging
server. ActiveMQ requires an external application server with XA support to
control 2PC transactions.
Administration: ActiveMQ’s web console provides very limited functionality.
For many basic and most of the advanced functions, such as editing queues or
changing maximum message size users have to manually edit configuration
files. Moreover, ActiveMQ requires a unique URL and separate browser window
for each broker, while the WebSphere MQ Explorer allows users to administer
multiple brokers from a single interface.
If high availability, reliability, usability, thorough documentation, and
platform compatibility are NOT important, ActiveMQ may be a good platform.
But for enterprise customers with reliability needs, WebSphere MQ is the
superior choice.”/