It would be interesting to see some numbers about memory utilization per message in backlog.
IMHO the main problem with keeping references in memory is that it needs recovery phase on broker startup. It can take a while when backlog is really big. -----Original Message----- From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Paging support Note that MessageReferences != message contents; they are mostly just a MessageId which is pretty small. On 8/29/06, Fateev, Maxim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AFAIK messages are moved from journal to permantent storage (JDBC) on every > checkpoint. The problem is that references for every message are still kept > in memory. > IMHO it is inherent limitation of MessageStore API as it is defined now. The > only way to get message is by id. And the only way to have id is to keep it > in memory. > I'm looking into changing MessageStore API to one that instead of > > Message getMessage(MessageId identity) > > Would provide > > Message getNextMessage() > > method eliminating need to keep references in memory. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anders Bengtsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:23 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Paging support > > > > gnodet wrote: > > > > If you don' t use any persistent store, messages must be kept in > > memory, so you are obvisouly limited by the available mem. > > > > Yes, this is what I would expect. > > > > > If you use a jdbc store, messages can be removed from memory and > > store for later consumption. > > > > Yes, except it doesn't actually work! > > It writes things to the store, but it is still very much limited by memory > for some reason. (Someone reported this as AMQ-845 earlier, but with no > response). > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Paging-support-tf2163517.html#a6034790 > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com. > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
