Hello,
whoever stumbles upon that issue:
I figured out that I can achieve the needed behavior by using the the
session mode *SESSION_TRANSACTED*.
So instead of using *acknowledge()* and *recover()* I'll use *commit()*
and *rollback()*. This seems to fix
the order when redelivering messages as
Hello,
I've observed a somewhat unexpected behavior of message delivery after a
recover with the following setup:
- Artemis broker (tested with 2.24.0 and 3.0.0)
- JMSConsumer (shared durable) *C* with
*ActiveMQJMSConstants.INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE*
- JMSProducer (shared durable) *P*
Hi Justin,
thank you very, very much!
I haven't changed the configuration yet but your excellent explanation
absolutely makes sense to me.
I also noticed the increasing amount of bridge connection after a
graceful shutdown/startup sequence.
Enabling persistence is fine for us.
I'll change th
I was able to take the archive you attached and reproduce the issue in just
a few minutes. Thanks for the great reproducer!
During reproduction I noticed something odd in the log. In a two-node
cluster you would expect each node to have 1 bridge each (i.e. going to the
*other* node of the cluster)
Have you looked into message Groups? It seems messages connected to a
different consumer during failover and redelivery happened.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:32 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
> Hey, Oliver. I apologize for the delay on this. It fell off my radar as
> I've been concentrating on other tas
Hey, Oliver. I apologize for the delay on this. It fell off my radar as
I've been concentrating on other tasks.
For what it's worth, the community support [1] provided on the mailing list
is, as the website says, provided for free on a volunteer basis. I would
imagine that everybody on this list h
Hi Justin,
this question is created about 4 weeks ago.
I can imagine that reproducing the unexpected behavior might take some time.
But does it really takes that long?
Do you still think that the dev team will give a feedback?
Regards,
Oliver
On 4/12/23 10:10, Oliver Lins wrote:
Hi,
askin
Hi,
asking again, is there any news concerning this question?
Thanks.
Oliver
On 4/4/23 09:56, Oliver Lins wrote:
Hi,
is there any news?
Oliver
On 3/28/23 10:28, Oliver Lins wrote:
Hi Justin,
thanks for the info. Pls take the time it needs to analyze.
Oliver
On 3/27/23 20:27, Justin Ber
Hi,
is there any news?
Oliver
On 3/28/23 10:28, Oliver Lins wrote:
Hi Justin,
thanks for the info. Pls take the time it needs to analyze.
Oliver
On 3/27/23 20:27, Justin Bertram wrote:
Not yet. I'm hoping to get to it at some point this week. I was out
of the
office last week.
Justin
O
Hi Justin,
thanks for the info. Pls take the time it needs to analyze.
Oliver
On 3/27/23 20:27, Justin Bertram wrote:
Not yet. I'm hoping to get to it at some point this week. I was out of the
office last week.
Justin
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:31 AM Oliver Lins wrote:
Hi,
is there any n
Not yet. I'm hoping to get to it at some point this week. I was out of the
office last week.
Justin
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:31 AM Oliver Lins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there any news concerning this question?
>
> Oliver
>
> On 3/16/23 13:59, Oliver Lins wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've attached an arch
Hi,
is there any news concerning this question?
Oliver
On 3/16/23 13:59, Oliver Lins wrote:
Hi,
I've attached an archive containing the test apps, logs and a readme
file.
If you have any questions pls let me know.
Thank you,
Oliver
On 3/15/23 16:31, Justin Bertram wrote:
I just need a w
Hi,
I've attached an archive containing the test apps, logs and a readme file.
If you have any questions pls let me know.
Thank you,
Oliver
On 3/15/23 16:31, Justin Bertram wrote:
I just need a way to reproduce what you're seeing so once you get your
reproducer in order let me know. Thanks!
I just need a way to reproduce what you're seeing so once you get your
reproducer in order let me know. Thanks!
Justin
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 9:36 AM Oliver Lins wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> thank you for your fast reply.
>
> > Would it be possible for you to work up a way to reproduce the
> beha
Hi Justin,
thank you for your fast reply.
> Would it be possible for you to work up a way to reproduce the
behavior you're seeing?
Yes, I can reproduce the behavior. I have simplified producer and
consumer Java code to reproduce.
The code is not yet the bare minimum necessary to work, but I ca
Based on your description, attached configuration, and logs I don't see
anything wrong, per se. Would it be possible for you to work up a way to
reproduce the behavior you're seeing?
Do you ever have more than 1 producer? If so, is the order-of-creation only
essential per producer or is it essenti
Hi,
we are using Artemis with the following setup:
- 2 independent broker instances (on 2 hosts)
- a cluster configuration to create a Core bridge between both instances
(no failover, no HA)
- multiple JMS clients produce and consume AMQP messages using topics
- the clients do a failover themse
Thanks！
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Message-order-when-use-PooledConnectionFactory-tp4690796p4692256.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
message
> sned by JmsTemplate? If not , how can I do to approach it?
>
> AcgiveMQ Jar version: 5.4.3
> Platform: Linux
> Tocmat: 7.0
> Jdk 6.0
> message type: Non persisted queue message.
> ActiveMQ server version: ActiveMQ 5.10.0
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> --
>
ed by JmsTemplate? If not , how can I do to approach it?
AcgiveMQ Jar version: 5.4.3
Platform: Linux
Tocmat: 7.0
Jdk 6.0
message type: Non persisted queue message.
ActiveMQ server version: ActiveMQ 5.10.0
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Message-order-whe
advance!
Regards
Guzmán
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Message-order-delivery-and-redelivery-tp4680829.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
upted.");
}
}
super.preProcessDispatch(messageDispatch);
}
This caused all the messages that should have come later, to not appear at
all on the consumer side.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Test-harness-to-verify-Mes
this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Test-harness-to-verify-Message-Order-Preservation-tp4655158p4655402.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
I am looking into how to build a configuration and verify a test that
preserves JMS message order, as describe in the camel features below:
http://activemq.apache.org/exclusive-consumer.html
http://activemq.apache.org/message-groups.html
The basic requirements for message order
es online, the order of messages is altered.
>
> Is this an issue anyone is aware of? Are there any settings that might cause
> this? Does browsing alter the order of messages yet to be delivered?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fed
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
Fed
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Browsing-and-message-order-tp3918428p3918428.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
hat a new Exclusive consumer wouldn't be able to consume
> >> messages until the crashed TCP connection/consumer finally closed and
> >> released the outstanding messages.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> -JD
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
rds,
>> -JD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> rajdavies wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5 Aug 2009, at 23:13, jerdavis wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> No takers?
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context
:13, jerdavis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> No takers?
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Total-Message-Order-of-Queues-%28not-topics%29-durring-edge-cases%28crashes%29-tp24705154p24837185.html
> >> Sent from the
the crashed TCP connection/consumer finally closed and
released the outstanding messages.
Regards,
-JD
rajdavies wrote:
On 5 Aug 2009, at 23:13, jerdavis wrote:
No takers?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Total-Message-Order-of-Queues-%28not-topics%29-durring-edge-cas
rote:
>
>>
>> No takers?
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Total-Message-Order-of-Queues-%28not-topics%29-durring-edge-cases%28crashes%29-tp24705154p24837185.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 5 Aug 2009, at 23:13, jerdavis wrote:
No takers?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Total-Message-Order-of-Queues-%28not-topics%29-durring-edge-cases%28crashes%29-tp24705154p24837185.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Total
No takers?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Total-Message-Order-of-Queues-%28not-topics%29-durring-edge-cases%28crashes%29-tp24705154p24837185.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
liver the locked messages at a later (out of
order) time?
Regards,
-JD
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Total-Message-Order-of-Queues-%28not-topics%29-durring-edge-cases%28crashes%29-tp24705154p24705154.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ring, right? Our application doesn't particularly
depend on
message order but this behavior is causing my unit tests to fail
every
third
time they are run. :(
This also seems problematic for STOMP clients using "client" ack
mode.
Since newer messages are delivered first, ack&
0 in with both persistent and
>> non-persistent messages. Note from the message ids and timestamps that
>> the
>> newer message is delivered first.
>>
>> Is there a way to force message delivery order? I don't think selectors
>> allow for ordering, right?
ay to force message delivery order? I don't think selectors
> > allow for ordering, right? Our application doesn't particularly depend on
> > message order but this behavior is causing my unit tests to fail every
> third
> > time they are run. :(
> >
> >
r? I don't think
selectors
allow for ordering, right? Our application doesn't particularly
depend on
message order but this behavior is causing my unit tests to fail
every third
time they are run. :(
This also seems problematic for STOMP clients using "client" ack
and
> non-persistent messages. Note from the message ids and timestamps that the
> newer message is delivered first.
>
> Is there a way to force message delivery order? I don't think selectors
> allow for ordering, right? Our application doesn't particularly depend on
> me
newer message is delivered first.
Is there a way to force message delivery order? I don't think selectors
allow for ordering, right? Our application doesn't particularly depend on
message order but this behavior is causing my unit tests to fail every third
time they are run. :(
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:10 AM, aftab gardan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi every body,
> i have a problem with message ordering.
>
> I create message A and Message B.
> when consumer catch message A, message A-2 created.
> i want to run message A-2 before message B.
>
> all message in same queu
hi every body,
i have a problem with message ordering.
I create message A and Message B.
when consumer catch message A, message A-2 created.
i want to run message A-2 before message B.
all message in same queue
please help.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/message-order
Any ideas?
>>
>> Am not sure how else we can reroduce it. It could well be fixed in 4.0
>> onwards (there have been many bug fixes since 4.0-RC2). I wonder if
>> any solaris users can reproduce the issue?
>>
>> --
>>
>> James
>> ---
>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/message-order-tf2120601s2354.html#a12931371
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
work with AMQ, and if I can do
>> anything else to reproduce the bug? Any ideas?
>
> Am not sure how else we can reroduce it. It could well be fixed in 4.0
> onwards (there have been many bug fixes since 4.0-RC2). I wonder if
> any solaris users can reproduce the issue?
>
> -
.
http://www.nabble.com/file/6534/order-java.tgz order-java.tgz
Iakov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am a new ActiveMQ user and came across an issue. it is my understanding
> that the message order in the below setup should be preserved:
>
> one topic (not a queue)
> one produc
apparently it's a bug. http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-729
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-729
thank u all
Iakov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am a new ActiveMQ user and came across an issue. it is my understanding
> that the message order in the b
Hello,
I am a new ActiveMQ user and came across an issue. it is my understanding
that the message order in the below setup should be preserved:
one topic (not a queue)
one producer
one consumer
I am seeing that the order is _not_ preserved. Am i wrong to expect the
correct order? in all the
47 matches
Mail list logo
