Gary, I think you're saying that subscription advisories for excluded destinations should be suppressed.
On the hub we're seeing advisories for queues on that spoke. Is there therefore a bug? James On 30 October 2012 11:58, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > the destinationFilter does the job of narrowing the list of > interesting consumers by limiting the advisory consumer to a subset of > destinations. > This is auto generated if it is not configured from 5.6.0, but needs > both ends of the networkconnector to be => 5.6 > > Have a peek at: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3384 > > > On 30 October 2012 09:10, James Green <james.mk.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Part of my intention of declaring excluded destinations was to reduce the > > amount of traffic over the ADSL line that exists between hub and the > spokes. > > > > However, despite the instruction to ban messaging on these destinations, > > the amount of traffic and instructions that the hub receives has not > > changed. > > > > The documentation, in my opinion, gives the impression that excluded > > destinations is to segregate the network; actually it only performs a > very > > thin segregation. People wanting to reduce the bandwidth between nodes > will > > use this and may be rather disappointed by the results... > > > > James > > > > On 29 October 2012 22:23, Christian Posta <christian.po...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > >> > I was expecting to see no traffic of any kind on our hub concerning > >> > Outbound.Account.>, yet sub requests are still flooding in. > >> > >> Can you explain more what you mean? Do you see subs being created for > that > >> dest on the networked brokers? > >> > >> If what you mean is you're seeing the logs below, that's as intended. > When > >> a bridge is established, it will listen to the remote broker's consumer > >> advisory messages (it listens to all of them, they are not filtered). > If it > >> sees a consumerInfo come in for a destination that is excluded, it will > >> just ignore it and log the message you see below. This is by design, at > the > >> moment. > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:59 AM, James Green <james.mk.gr...@gmail.com > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > Given: > >> > > >> > <networkConnectors> > >> > <networkConnector uri="static://(ssl://hub:61617)" > >> > name="hub" > >> > duplex="true" > >> > conduitSubscriptions="false" > >> > dynamicOnly="false"> > >> > <excludedDestinations> > >> > <queue physicalName="Outbound.Account.>"/> > >> > </excludedDestinations> > >> > <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >> > </networkConnector> > >> > </networkConnectors> > >> > > >> > On "hub" I see: > >> > > >> > 2012-10-29 12:44:34,722 | DEBUG | hub Ignoring sub from zorin, > >> destination > >> > queue://Outbound.Account.20481 is not permiited :ConsumerInfo > {commandId > >> = > >> > 5, responseRequired = false, consumerId = > >> > ID:quarrel-40451-1351260922652-4:760216:-1:2, destination = > >> > queue://Outbound.Account.20481, prefetchSize = 1, > >> > maximumPendingMessageLimit = 0, browser = false, dispatchAsync = true, > >> > selector = MJStage = 'Dispatch', subscriptionName = null, noLocal = > >> false, > >> > exclusive = false, retroactive = false, priority = 0, brokerPath = > null, > >> > optimizedAcknowledge = false, noRangeAcks = false, > additionalPredicate = > >> > null} | org.apache.activemq.network.DemandForwardingBridgeSupport | > >> > ActiveMQ Transport: ssl:///n.n.n.n:32831 > >> > > >> > I was expecting to see no traffic of any kind on our hub concerning > >> > Outbound.Account.>, yet sub requests are still flooding in. > >> > > >> > Is this normal? Can I get my desired result? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > James > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Christian Posta* > >> http://www.christianposta.com/blog > >> twitter: @christianposta > >> > > > > -- > http://redhat.com > http://blog.garytully.com >
