ActiveMQ Reviews

The ability to send large messages at decent speeds.

It had no impact on the organization. We used it in a solution we built for somebody else.

Even though there is support from many open source communities, there is still weakness in ease-of-use and ease-of-configuration for more complex scenarios.

The speed is not the highest ranking, but it's well known by users. They chose ActiveMQ for other features, because they know there are other messaging solutions that can work faster, like RabbitMQ, which is not Java written, but rather Erlang.

I have been using ActiveMQ for one year.

There were no problems with stability.

There were no scalability issues up to the point when I was involved in the project.

I didn't use their technical support, just the classical StackOverflow support. That gave me enough information.

We didn't have a previous solution.

The installation was straightforward. The framework we used, Spring, facilitates this integration.

We evaluated RabbitMQ.

Make sure you need all the facilities that a message broker offers, as there are other lightweight solutions out there.

Most valuable to us are fast asynchronous message queuing with message-level acknowledging and message persistency.

ActiveMQ operates as the message bus across single-purpose components. Thanks to ActiveMQ, the system is able to scale its heavy computing components during traffic peaks.

I would like to see improvement in the clustering brokers. Configuring ActiveMQ brokers for working in a cluster is difficult and has many constraints. Also, the configuration files are not intuitive.

We have been using ActiveMQ for about 6 years.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

The only issue we had concerned the practical limit of 2000 messages per broker, per second. The next step, which is multiplying brokers, worked well though.

I have not used technical support so far.

Initial setup is quite complex when done for a high performance system. The configuration files are not intuitive.