Thanks Matt

Our recommendation to our application teams is to always use connection pools.  
Also, the number of messages enqueued to ActiveMQ.Advisory.Connection is order 
of magnitudes higher than the number of messages enqueued to any topics or 
queues.

Example - Less than 300 messages have been enqueued on our verf broker since 
last restart yesterday morning, but there's 590,222 connection advisory 
messages.   

Suspect I'll have to somehow get a look at the advisory messages to really 
understand what's going on...

Chris

On 2022-03-31, 11:32 AM, "Matt Pavlovich" <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote:

    [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

    Hello Chris-

    Sounds like some apps are connecting+sending 1 message+disconnecting. 
Spring JMS + using transactions without a connection pool is usually the culprit

    As a best practice-- apps should use connection pool as a best practice 
(just like in the database world).

    Thanks,
    Matt Pavlovich

    > On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:03 PM, Krusch, Chris <chris.kru...@ubc.ca> wrote:
    > 
    > I noticed while working with our brokers recently that lots of messages 
are being enqueued to the ActiveMQ.Advisory.Connection Topic - an average of 
214,000 per day....
    > 
    > Our messaging applications appear to be working fine, and there's no 
flood of associated error messages in the ActiveMQ logs - though there are 
"Transport Connection to tcp//??.??.??.??:port failed: java.io.EOFException" 
messages for two connecting servers occurring about once every 2 minutes (about 
700 per day).
    > 
    > Concerned there may be some underlying problem with the way some 
connections are established - maybe issues with connection pools on connecting 
servers. 
    > 
    > Has anyone else noted this behavior? 
    > Is that type of number normal? 
    > Can anyone recommend a simple way to capture and view some of the 
advisory messages being issued?
    > 
    > Any guidance appreciated...
    > 
    > Chris Krusch
    > Systems Architect
    > The University of British Columbia
    > 



Reply via email to