All, We're having some issues with disabling Advisory Support on a Network of Brokers.
We've tried with version 4, 5, and the latest 5.1 build with the same result. I've boiled our environment down to two brokers (call it Broker A and Broker B) and have the network connectors defined as follows: Snippets from Broker A's configuration: <broker brokerName="BrokerA" useJmx="true" persistent="false" advisorySupport="false" xmlns="http://activemq.org/config/1.0";> <networkConnectors> <networkConnector name="default-nc1" uri="static://(tcp://machineB:61616)" dynamicOnly="false" networkTTL="3"> <staticallyIncludedDestinations> <queue physicalName="q1"/> </staticallyIncludedDestinations> </networkConnector> </networkConnectors> </broker> Snippets from Broker B’s configuration: <broker brokerName="BrokerB" useJmx="true" persistent="false" advisorySupport="false" xmlns="http://activemq.org/config/1.0";> <networkConnectors> <networkConnector name="default-nc1" uri="static://(tcp:// machineA:61616)" dynamicOnly="false" networkTTL="3"> <staticallyIncludedDestinations> <queue physicalName="q1"/> </staticallyIncludedDestinations> </networkConnector> </networkConnectors> </broker> The tests we ran were the following: Enable Advisory Support on Both Brokers: Messages are sent properly in both directions. A -> B and B -> A. Disable Advisory Support on both brokers: Message stays on sending broker and never sent. Enable just Broker A: Messages flow A -> B. However, in reverse (B -> A), the messages remain on Broker B. I've even gone as far as to create the same destination (q1) on the receiving box with no success. The root of this inquiry is we're seeing a memory leak in the Network of Brokers where the broker is running through 500 Megs of memory after a couple hours of hard use (800 messages/second sustained load). At a minimum I would have expected this memory to be released with all consumers removed and the broker idling, but the memory is never released. I've seen a post or two on an issue with Advisory Queues possibly causing a memory leak, so we're interested in seeing if disabling them will mitigate this. Any ideas? Eric -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Advisory-Support-and-Network-of-Brokers-tp14743249s2354p14743249.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
