Yes, that's what it means.
On Sunday, July 14, 2013, Praveen Bysani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I observed a lot of following messages in my log,
>
> 2013-07-15 03:48:22,399 | DEBUG | Message expired ActiveMQBytesMessage
> {commandId = 1498, responseRequired = false, messageId =
> d7dfc864-e46a-44b0-a0ec-b5d9e3a07127:1:1:253, originalDestination = null,
> originalTransactionId = null, producerId = ID:global-desktop, destination =
> topic://DM, transactionId = null, expiration = 1373831265580, timestamp =
> 1373831145580, arrival = 0, brokerInTime = 1373831302399, brokerOutTime =
> 1373831299130, correlationId = null, replyTo = null, persistent = false,
> type = null, priority = 4, groupID = null, groupSequence = 0,
> targetConsumerId = null, compressed = false, userID = null, content =
> org.apache.activemq.util.ByteSequence@7f94dadb, marshalledProperties =
> null, dataStructure = null, redeliveryCounter = 0, size = 0, properties =
> null, readOnlyProperties = false, readOnlyBody = false, droppable = false}
> ActiveMQBytesMessage{ bytesOut = null, dataOut = null, dataIn = null } |
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.RegionBroker | ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp:///<ip-address>:40887@6122
>
> Does that mean it failed to deliver the messages before the time to live ?
>
> On 12 July 2013 14:49, Praveen Bysani <praveen.ii...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Thanks i added the log4j for all components under org.apache.activemq.
> > Hopefully i can see something useful.
> >
> >
> > On 12 July 2013 00:21, Christian Posta <christian.po...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Add logging configuration to turn on logging for the bridge.
> >>
> >> e.g.,
> >>
> >> to your log4j.properties, add
> >>
> >>
> >>
> log4j.logger.org.apache.activemq.network.DemandForwardingBridgeSupport=DEBUG
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Praveen Bysani <
> praveen.ii...@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I found the following lines in the subscriber log
> >> >
> >> > | org.apache.activemq.transport.InactivityMonitor | DEBUG | 2013-07-11
> >> > 07:34:44,384 | 30000 ms elapsed since last read check.
> >> > | org.apache.activemq.transport.InactivityMonitor | DEBUG | 2013-07-11
> >> > 07:34:44,384 |
> >> > org.apache.activemq.transport.InactivityMonitor$2@61726a5c9999
> >> > ms elapsed since last write check.
> >> >
> >> > I have disabled the inactivity period in the broker connection url by
> >> > setting maxInactivityDuration to 0. Does it have anything to do with
> >> > messages not being received ?
> >> >
> >> > On 11 July 2013 12:18, Praveen Bysani <praveen.ii...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Christian,
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for your input. But i have little idea of what those terms
> >> mean.
> >> > > Could you elaborate please.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 10 July 2013 21:06, Christian Posta <christian.po...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Your best bet would be to set logging to debug on the network
> bridge
> >> > >> (DemandForwardingBridgeSupport) and possibly the RegionBroker to
> see
> >> > what
> >> > >> is happening.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, Praveen Bysani wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Hi,
> >> > >> > I have the following setup in my project,
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > 1. multiple producers (p1,p2,p3) in Hongkong region sending
> >> > variable
> >> > >> > size non-persistent messages to a topic t1 on the broker (b1)
> in
> >> > >> > Phillippines region
> >> > >> > 2. p1,p2 and p3 send messages frequently (~1 second)
> >> > >> > 3. each message has a time to live of 30 seconds
> >> > >> > 4. a tcp network bridge from b1 to a new broker b2 in HK
> region
> >> > >> > 5. consumers c1 in hongkong and c2 in europe subscribed to b2
> >> > through
> >> > >> > ssl and a consumer c3 subscribed to t1 on b1 through tcp
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I don't see the same amount of messages received across c1, c2
> and
> >> c3.
> >> > >> The
> >> > >> > number of messages received is in the following order c3 > c1 >
> >> c2. I
> >> > >> use
> >> > >> > the default settings for prefetch values and *vmCursor *for
> >> > >> > *pendingSubscriberPolicy
> >> > >> > *and *strictOrderDisptachpolicy*.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > While i understand there could be delays in passing the message
> to
> >> > these
> >> > >> > consumers as c3 could be slow consumer and c1 is fast, shouldn't
> >> the
> >> > >> > message eventually be received to all consumers of a topic. Why
> do
> >> i
> >> > see
> >> > >> > different volumes of
--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta
