Our doc for Journaled JDBC[1]suggests that it will boost performance by a great margin. Hence customers may think they should really use journaled JDBC over JDBC. The Apache doc does pretty much the same[2].However in today's world with gigabit networks the access to a remote database can be almost as fast as accessing local file storage (e.g. kahadb). So the performance gain of using journaled JDBC seems to be gone these days.
In addition journaled JDBC is rarely used by anyone (if used at all) and as our docs already points out does not easily support master/slave.
From the ActiveMQ community point of view this persistence adapter seems to be almost discontinued.We should change our docs for journaled JDBC so that it looks less attractive to use it.[1]https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_JBoss_A-MQ/6.1/html/Configuring_Broker_Persistence/files/FuseMBPersistJDBCJournaled.html[2]http://activemq.apache.org/persistence.html