Justin- Sorry to hear that you’ve had problems with ActiveMQ in the past. I’ve had a lot of successful deployments in large-scale environments (3,000+ brokers, hub and spoke with 1 broker serving up to 1,000 clients, 4,000 queues and 3,000 total connections) with transactions, and the full boat of features with newer releases of ActiveMQ. If you don’t have luck with alternatives, I suggest you give newer versions a second look.
The replicated Master-Slave was definitely a lightly-maintained feature and has a lot of operational problems (how to resync after an outage, etc). Back to your original issue.. I've seen a lot of issues with Spring JMS Template on the consumer side (esp with transactions). Recommend trying with straight JMS code to isolate if you have a pooling/caching issue or a broker bug and go from there. -Matt On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:54 AM, James Black <be_st...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > thanks for the response. > > The reason that we have not migrated to a later version of ActiveMq is that > we are looking to move away from using ActiveMq due to the problems we have > had. Therefore, we wanted to avoid going through the whole testing process > for a later version of ActiveMq. We use shared nothing master/slave > replicated which has been removed in later ActiveMq versions. > > We are doing JMS local (originally we tried XA but had massive problems with > that) and we have tested with all caching settings for the DMLC to no avail. > Our connection is not provided from a pool but directly from standard > ActiveMq connection factory (org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory), > due to the fact that it is cached in the DMLC. > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Consumer-performance-problem-with-Tx-tp4685226p4685279.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
