Re: Issue with network of brokers and active/passive pair

Hi Matt, Thank you sooo much for answering my question. That simple config change fixed the problem! I’m so grateful Out of curiosity, the documentation mentions but there are a some other non-intuitive options that must be configured for it to work as desired For my own edification, is the

Re: Queue Retrieval Performance after upgrade

Hi Steve- These settings are lower than the default and generally lead to degraded consumer performance. Any reason you lowered the maxPageSize from 200 to 10? What only allow 1 message prefetch— the default is 1,000? Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Jan 23, 2024, at 9:58 AM, Steve Hill wrote: >

Re: ActiveMQ 6.0.1 Upgrade from 5.18..3 and JMX Settings

Hi Jason- Were you able to get this resolved? Be sure to use a recent JDK 17 release with ActiveMQ 6.0.x. A quick scan over those params looks correct and still valid in the JDK: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/4dd6c44cbdb0b5957414fa87b6c559fa4d6f2fa8/test/jdk/sun/management/jmxremote/sta

Re: Apache Log4j 1.x Multiple Vulnerabilities--Apache ActiveMQ classic version upgrade

This looks like you are referencing a log handler that is not shipped as part of the Apache ActiveMQ distribution. Possibly a Fuse or Red Hat A-MQ build? That part of the ActiveMQ configuration needs to be removed and/or modified. Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Feb 1, 2024, at 5:03 PM, Vishnu Midd

Re: Stomp configuration questions

Hi Paul- Yes, log4j2 has a completely different log config file format vs log4j v1. The only docs / blog posts / etc haven’t caught up. If you can share the log sample you are trying (and/or link to ActiveMQ webpage), we can try to get you a log4j2 version. Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Feb 15,

Re: Issue with network of brokers and active/passive pair

Hi Bruce- Network Connectors retry or ‘failover’ automatically, so you should don’t use the ‘failover’ transport in your networkConnector uri. The networkConnector uri scheme you are looking for in this architecture is ‘masterslave’: https://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/documentation

Re: AcitveMQ 6.0.1 and Spring Framework CVE-2024-22243

Hi James- FYI— updated ActiveMQ releases for 6.1.x, 6.0.x, 5.18.x & 5.17.x are underway. This CVE does not appear to apply to ActiveMQ, since ActiveMQ does not use the vulnerable class 'UriComponentsBuilder '. Additionally, this issue can be readily avoided by disabling the web console which

Re: Upgrade to Spring 5.3.32 for ActiveMQ 5.18.4 because of CVE-2024-22243?

Hi Stefan- FYI— updated ActiveMQ releases for 6.1.x, 6.0.x, 5.18.x & 5.17.x are underway. This CVE does not appear to apply to ActiveMQ, since ActiveMQ does not use the vulnerable class 'UriComponentsBuilder '. Additionally, this issue can be readily avoided by disabling the web console which

Re: Message delivery failure and Primary Key violation on load balanced ActiveMQ Broker

Hi Jack- This looks like you are using the JDBC backend. I would recommend having the DBA review logs for the database for other indicators. You may have a couple things going on. For sure it appears you have a duplicate publishing attempt based on the PRIMARY KEY violation. -Matt Pavlovich >

R: Metrics on Artemis for negative use cases

Hi Justin, is there some news about the https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4306 and authn/z metrics? Is it in plan to address that in one of the next releases? Many thanks in advance, Andrea Da: Justin Bertram Inviato: giovedì 8 giugno 2023 20:09 A: us

Re: Message delivery failure and Primary Key violation on load balanced ActiveMQ Broker

Hello Jack, clear thanks. But are you able to reproduce the issue sistematically? If yes, in theory, if you restart the slower broker instance and you let it get the lease again (e.g. shutting down all the others), it should flush in the shared datastore the still pending messages it has still got