Hi,
I can't reproduce this problem persistently today. Strange. Maybe some
timing issue.
I'll post again, once I can produce a "reliable" test case.
Thanks for caring,
Chris
On 07/07/2010 07:31 PM, Joe Fernandez wrote:
This seems to work fine for me with 5.3.2. What version of AMQ are you
denis,
if networkTTL="1", without a consumer consuming messages on BROKER1
messages will just accumulate. I would try after setting dynamicOnly=true
on the network connectors.
-Clark
PS
Which broker received the OOM error?
www.ttmsolutions.com
ActiveMQ reference guide at
http://bit.ly
Thanks for the help.
I was able to run the broker by putting the war file in JBoss deploy
directory and changing the webconsole-embedded.xml inside the war
(WEB-INF) to point to my configuration
file. It is running file.
Hammad
Hi Dejan, yes you're right.
performing the same tests on ActiveMq 5.3.1 that I have already installed
all run as we expect.
After sending a lot of messages to a queue with slow consumers, we noticed
that the memory goes constant and the store usage begin to grow.
When we reach the 100% of the sto
Hi,
it seems like a bug in 5.3.0 as memory percent for the queue is not
calculated properly. I ran a similar test against 5.3.2 (and snapshot)
and they behave as expected.
Can you run your test against some of these versions and let us know
your results?
Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.
It depends a little on the type of failure, a connection failure will
be propagated up the the send thread, but if the send fails in the
broker because of a configured memory limit (for example with
sendFailIfNoSpace=true), the connection will remain and the exception
will just be logged unless you
Hi Dejan,
tnx for the reply.
This is in short the configuration I used for the tests, that is the
ActiveMq default one with producerFlowControl disabled :
I tried with the vmQueueCursor and fileQueueCursor too, to see what happen,
but the result of pending messages increase is the same : the
Good point. That's a reasonable place to start. I'm not clear on the syntax
for specifying a custom policy in the config. Maybe that's just me not
fully understanding the DTD.
Joe Fernandez wrote:
>
> There are a couple of dispatch policies in
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.policy that
Hi everybody,
We are currently using ActiveMQ 5.2 application in our project and we are
glad to use this great app.
One of our java application is misbehaving while receiving and producing
message and I don't have a lot of clue to troubleshoot the problem.
In fact, we are using 4 computers to r
You can also check you memory limits on the queue and see how much of
it has been used, and perhaps tune that a bit.
Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb
Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale
Hi Chris,
Do you by any chance use VM Cursor in your config?
Please take a look at this page for more details:
http://activemq.apache.org/message-cursors.html
It'd be good if you could post you configuration, so we can see check it out.
Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb
Open
Hi,
we are performing some tests on our ActiveMq instance (version 5.3.0) and we
noticed a memory increase when our persistent queues become quite full of
pending messages.
The result of slow consumers with producerFlowControl disabled is a constant
increase of the memory with the number of pendin
No worries. Glad that's sorted.
Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb
Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, ChrisB84 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thx for the fast
> So it's fine without correlation ID because the producer waits for reply
> message not on the static queue but on the temporary queue registered in the
> JMSReplyTo header.
It's fine without correlation ID as long as the requesting side
(producer) waits for reply before sending next request.
Cor
The correlation Id is useful when a reply queue is shared by processes
or by producers/consumers concurrently and the replies come back out
of order.
Typically, a queue is used to decouple 'requests for work' from 'work'
so the order of 'work' completion is not deterministic, hence the need
for a c
Hi,
thx for the fast answer. i have tested my config with an clean 5.3.2 and
this works it seems that was my misstake :)
Thanks for help!
lg
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5.3.1-%3C%3D%3E-5.3.2-Issue-tp29104984p29106389.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ -
useAsyncSend gave a tremendous speedup and I will try to work from here. I
need to reasonably guarantee delivery though of messages, and currently
everything is wrapped in a resender, meaning if JmsTemplate throws an
Exception, the message and all subsequent are put into a memory queue and
resendi
any inflight work needs to be thrown away pending a commit. Only
prepared transactions should remain after a restart.
On 8 July 2010 10:04, radha_mit wrote:
>
>
> The MemoryTransactionStore contains a rollback method that is called when
> the broker is crashed or shutting down. The rollback meth
I give thought to the correlation ID concept on the JMS Specification.
When using synchronous queue messages, we should have JMSReplyTo header
which has a destination of the producer.
After sending, the producer waits for reply message to reach its temporary
queue.
In this format, it is only th
Hi,
can you test the snapshot. There are some refactoring in those areas lately.
Also, try using the modified client side API, like show here
http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/activemq/trunk/activemq-web-demo/src/main/webapp/test/subscribe_send.html?r=HEAD
BTW. messages sent to the topic bef
Hi,
it shouldn't be the case. Can you provide a test case that demonstrate
the issue.
Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb
Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at
Hello,
I have an issue with the simpleAuthentication.
I have configured the Authentication for the WebFrontend.
http://activemq.apache.org/security.html
The config works with 5.3.1, but with 5.3.2 i have unrestricted access to
all resouces.
is this a known issue?
best regards
Chris
--
sorry, mistake in last line..
if the method body is commented ?
Thanks,
Radha
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/regarding-ActiveMQ-MemoryPersistence-Adapter-tp29103813p29103918.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
The MemoryTransactionStore contains a rollback method that is called when
the broker is crashed or shutting down. The rollback method then removes
the transactionIds in the two concurrent HashMaps.
Actually why is it removing the transactions ? i tried commenting those
lines and i found no prob
24 matches
Mail list logo
