If this is closed I am assuming there is a workaround. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Andreas Calvo Gómez < andreas.ca...@scytl.com> wrote:
> Christian, > I do have seen this error a lot, and in fact it's critical. > We discussed this with Gary but the bug got closed without a confirmation > of a fix ( > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/AMQ-3353<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3353> > ). > In fact, I'm writing a test case now because using the Multicast Transport > Protocol happens the same. > > On 31/01/13 01:11, Christian Posta wrote: > >> Still not sure if there is a problem. How long in between writes would you >> say elapses? >> Can you put a sample together showing the problem? >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Mohit Anchlia <mohitanch...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> We are using mule and activemq 5.7.0. Is there a workaround for this >>> problem? >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Christian Posta >>> <christian.po...@gmail.com>**wrote: >>> >>> There were some issues around NIO and stomp/mqtt that Tim resolved here: >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/AMQ-4106<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4106> >>>> >>>> But you'd have to tell more about your transportConnectors to say >>>> whether >>>> it's related. >>>> Otherwise, if you can reproduce what you're seeing and attach to a JIRA >>>> (preferably in a test case) I'll take care of it for you. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Mohit Anchlia <mohitanch...@gmail.com >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> We are always writing and this happens when we are actively writing >>>>> successfully and then all of a sudden mq detects this to be a bad >>>>> connection. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Christian Posta < >>>>> christian.po...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> There's usually a good reason for it. Means a transport didn't >>>>>> >>>>> receive >>> >>>> any >>>>> >>>>>> data in a period of time... Are you seeing it in the broker logs? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Mohit Anchlia < >>>>>> >>>>> mohitanch...@gmail.com >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> We often see >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Channel was inactive for too long >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our MQ and app is in same network and is reliable. I have tested >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>> network and it looks like there is a bug in this check. I don't see >>>>>>> >>>>>> any >>>> >>>>> bug >>>>>> >>>>>>> files, is anyone aware of this? >>>>>>> It also appears others either disable it or increase the inactivity >>>>>>> >>>>>> period >>>>>> >>>>>>> as workaround. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Christian Posta* >>>>>> http://www.christianposta.com/**blog<http://www.christianposta.com/blog> >>>>>> twitter: @christianposta >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Christian Posta* >>>> http://www.christianposta.com/**blog<http://www.christianposta.com/blog> >>>> twitter: @christianposta >>>> >>>> >> >> > -- > Andreas Calvo Gómez > Systems Engineer > Scytl Secure Electronic Voting > Plaça Gal·la Placidia, 1-3, 1st floor · 08006 Barcelona > Phone: + 34 934 230 324 > Fax: + 34 933 251 028 > http://www.scytl.com > > NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and in any of its attachments is > confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, > copying, > distribution or retaining of this message or any part of it, without the > prior > written consent of Scytl Secure Electronic Voting, SA is prohibited and > may be > unlawful. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender > and > delete the material from any computer. > >
