Are you reaching your diskUsage threshold (see systemUsage)?
On Sunday, April 19, 2015, Kevin Burton wrote:
> Interesting. It’s already 1 in the connection configuration. I assume you
> mean queuePrefetch as it’s named differently in the destination policy.
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 5:42 PM,
add some more logic to apply to only
> certain destinations.
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Geoffrey Arnold <
> geoff...@geoffreyarnold.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have a composite queue defined as follows:
> >
> &
Hello,
We have a composite queue defined as follows:
...
When producers send persistent messages to the `DataQueue`, thos
To stop:
DefaultMessageListenerContainer#stop
DefaultMessageListenerContainer#shutdown
To restart:
DefaultMessageListenerContainer#initialize
On Aug 28, 2012, at 4:18 PM, jpcook01 wrote:
> Hmmm,
>
> Thinking about this, if I shut the DefaultMessageListenerContainer do
reference that in the xml configuration via
> org.springframework.beans.factory.config.PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer
>
> If is important that the clientId, the combination of brokerName and
> networkConnector name, is consistent across restarts.
>
> On 20 May 2012 21:45, Geoffrey Arnold wrote:
>> H
Hello again,
We are from AMQ 5.4.0 to 5.6.0, and there appears to be a new uniqueness
constraint in network connector names in network-of-brokers configurations.
Here's our setup:
- N copies of a producer application; each copy of the producer application
consists of an embedded broker with 2 n
mq-core/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/broker/BrokerService.java?view=markup
>
> On 18 May 2012 15:18, Geoffrey Arnold wrote:
>> Many thanks Gary! Do you have recommendations for the storeUsage and
>> tempUsage limits given that our max journal file size is 32mb? How did this
>
Many thanks Gary! Do you have recommendations for the storeUsage and tempUsage
limits given that our max journal file size is 32mb? How did this work in
5.4.0?
On May 18, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
> inline
>
> On 18 May 2012 05:24, Geoffrey Arnold wrote:
>> We are
We are upgrading from AMQ 5.4.0 to 5.6.0, and noticed two issues right off the
bat:
- The "activemq-all-5.6.0.jar" library is now bundled with the SLF4J Log4J
binding, trumping the JDK 1.4 binding already in our classpath. As a
workaround we have switched to using the individual libraries (act
FWIW we experienced the same issue when using a single queue with selectors.
Simply moving to multiple queues without selectors resolved the issue. Most
definitely related to the default page size setting others have mentioned, but
we didn't have time to experiment with different settings.
YM
We're having the same issue with SLF4J 1.5.11 (the version distributed with
ActiveMQ 5.5.0).
On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:35 AM, dcheckoway wrote:
> I suppose I should also mention that we're using slf4j 1.6.1. Not sure if
> that has anything to do with this, since the stack trace does show it
> happ
Quick follow-up: After another restart, JMX reported the queue size as 75 for
over a day, but now the queue size is -17. How reliable is this metric?
On Dec 1, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Geoffrey Arnold wrote:
> Hello us...@!
>
> We have a queue defined in an embedded broker that when viewe
Hello us...@!
We have a queue defined in an embedded broker that when viewed through the JMX
console appears to have 17 messages stuck on the queue. The application that
is consuming the messages contains the embedded broker. We have a constant
flow of messages that are being processed from t
> Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
> ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
>
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Geoffrey Arnold <
> geoff...@geoffreyarnold.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dejan,
>>
&g
like everything is OK.
>
> 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 Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:
eMessage(Session session) throws
JMSException {
return session.createTextMessage();
}
});
assertNotNull(consumerJmsOperations.receive());
}
}
On May 5, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Geoffrey Arnold wrote:
> Issued opened with failing test:
>
> https://is
>
> 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 Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Geoffrey Arnold <
&g
Hi All!
During upgrades we would like to be able to stop and restart the network
connector between embedded brokers running in separate VMs.
In the embedded broker of the producer VM we have a network connector pointing
to the transport connector of an embedded broker in the consumer VM. I hav
Hi all,
Just looking for a loose timeframe for the ActiveMQ 5.3.1 release for some
production planning. Are you thinking 2009, or will it push into 2010?
Many thanks,
Geoff.
Ok, looking forward to 5.3.1. Thanks Swen!
On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:01 PM, smoc wrote:
>
> Seems to be the same bug as:
> http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2448
> http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2448
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/OutOfMe
Hi all,
We have a forwarding bridge between an embedded broker in one VM and a remote
broker in another VM using the examples from the network-of-brokers
documentation[1]. While testing failover, we left the embedded broker VM
running overnight but did not start the remote broker VM. NOTE: Th
lking about. It can impact performance though. See
http://activemq.apache.org/what-is-the-prefetch-limit-for.html
Geoffrey Arnold-2 wrote:
Thanks Gary. Our Cucumber tests are really integration tests, so it
would require a restart of the VM running the embedded broker.
Is there anyway to disabl
cluster
it seems
the transactional mode would be sufficient. It just so happens our
previous
messaging framework retried messages by placing them at the end of
the queue
so this is more of legacy support than anything.
Regards
Geoffrey Arnold-2 wrote:
Hey Mark,
We ended up opting to
Hey Mark,
We ended up opting to put the message back on the end of the queue
instead of rolling back, but this leads to repeated reprocessing of
the message. My guess is that you have solved this with metadata:
Our framework is sophisticated enough to
manage redeliveries in this way by ad
the
session
behavior that is under test?
2009/10/15 Geoffrey Arnold
Hi All,
We are successfully using JMX to purge our queues in between our
Cucumber-based test scenarios, however this does not clear the
session's
internal consumer queue. This can cause messages which have been
deli
Hi All,
When a message is rolled back on a session, it appears that no other
messages will be delivered to the consumer's listener for that session
until the original message is consumed (committed). I believe that
this is due to the session attempting to maintain message order,
however
Hi All,
We are successfully using JMX to purge our queues in between our
Cucumber-based test scenarios, however this does not clear the
session's internal consumer queue. This can cause messages which have
been delivered to the consumer's session but not yet consumed by the
listener (per
is also referred to as a forwarding bridge. See the following
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html
AMQ 5.3 comes with a couple of example cfg files to set up a simple
2 node
NoB.
Joe
http://www.ttmsolutions.com
Geoffrey Arnold wrote:
Hi All,
I'm trying to form a top
Hi All,
I'm trying to form a topology where queues hosted on independent
brokers (separate machines) are consolidated into a single queue on a
central broker. Messages will be consumed by listeners on that
central broker. Independent brokers will come on and off the network.
Originally
29 matches
Mail list logo
