Reading the forums, doesn't this error mean that there is some problem
with the heartbeat. The client was still alive when it happened as seen in
the previous posts (it did throw the exception when the InactivityMonitor
killed the connection).
I assume you are referring to the maxinactivi
Hello,
ttmdev wrote:
There is a consumer option called 'noLocal' (e.g.,
TEST.Q?consumer.noLocal=true).
When set to ‘true’, it prohibits delivery of messages produced on the same
connection.
Thanks Joe, it helps. I just missed overloaded CreateConsumer session'
method which has noLocal
Yeah. Broker, consumer and producer are all in separate machine. All these
machines has 6-cpus.
The result for my throughput is total, not count for single consumer that is
why I feel strange of the results.
I also do some tests by using cluster of brokers, typically 3 broker
machines by using sto
Was this all running on a single 6-cpu host?
I found your initial results surprising given that I have done similar
testing just a few weeks ago that struggled to make a third of your
throughput, but my tests involved two 2-cpu hosts, so this likely accounts
for the difference.
Also to clarify, w
An issue when testing performance s when I increase the number of consumers
for testing non-persistent messages, the throughput get down very fast. I
can't find the reason for it. Each consumer thread is a separate connection
to the broker.
Below is my result for testing (all using one producer to
I guess it is a warning for disconnect the clients which has been inactive
for a long time. You can set the time for inactive connection by set
activitymonitor.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:52 PM, sparky2708 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This started happening since we upgraded from 4.1.0. 4.1.0 d
This started happening since we upgraded from 4.1.0. 4.1.0 doesn't seem to
have this problem.
sparky2708 wrote:
>
> I am getting the same error with SNAPSHOT-5.1:
>
> 21/02/2008 08:03:34,335 ERROR [ActiveMQ Connection Worker:
> tcp://puccell/10.0.55.197:61616] (MessageManager.java:439) -
> com
Another issue I met is when I increase the number of consumers for testing
non-persistent messages,
the throughput also get down very fast. I can't find the reason for it.
Each consumer thread is a separate connection to the broker.
Below is my result for testing (all using one producer to send mes
Well, I'm just starting to play with ActiveMQ myself, but just as a
datapoint, I found that when writing every durable message to disk using
the default Kaha store in 5.0, I maxed out at transferring a whopping 14
40KB msgs/s. That's using a single, low-performance 7200RPM drive
without write c
Yeah, I do need to test for persistence, but firstly I wan to make sure the
performance
is good. The result for consuming durable messages make me disappointed. Is
any specific
configuration for consuming durable messages? I do test for producing and
consuming
durable messages at the same time, th
Hello,
We are using ActiveMQ 4.1.1 and are in the process of testing failover.
We have 2 servers (host 1 & host2), each with 1 broker and 2 publishers
each. So, the 2 publishers that are on host1 send messages to the broker on
host1 and use host2 as failover, and vice versa for host2.
The
There is a consumer option called 'noLocal' (e.g.,
TEST.Q?consumer.noLocal=true).
When set to ‘true’, it prohibits delivery of messages produced on the same
connection.
Joe
www.ttmsolutions.com
Oleg Deribas-5 wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm connecting to ActiveMQ 5.0 with the latest SVN versio
I think the exclusive consumer feature should do the trick for you. If you
introduce an exclusive consumer to an existing cluster of non-exclusive
consumers, the exclusive consumer will gain control of the corresponding
destination and the non-exclusives are locked out. When the exclusive
consumer
It sounds like you don't have a very firm grasp on what's going on,
under the covers. If you need persistence, have you tried pulling the
power cord from your server and verifying you haven't lost messages? If
you don't care, why do you need persistence? :)
I suspect that what might be happeni
I have no idea about the IO systems. The server is using Linux Operating
System and has 6 cpus. I find that the speed is getting lower and lower
with time. When produce 50 messages, the speed is 3500/s. But when
consumer 70 messages, the speed get down to avg 1700/s. I think I need
to ru
What is the underlying I/O system like for your broker? As I understand
the persistence layer for ActiveMQ, 3,500 durable messages a second
sounds too good to be true, assuming you're writing them safely.
zaoliu wrote:
I am tuning the performance of ActiveMQ broker for Queue by using three
sep
I am tuning the performance of ActiveMQ broker for Queue by using three
separate machines as producer, consumer and server. I got pretty good
throughput for non persistent messages, approximate 2 msgs/s. For
persistent messages, approximate 4000 megs/s. But when I tested for message
store of t
The DefaultMessageListenerContainer is supposed to handle the commit for you,
but I did try manually committing the session and I was still able to
reproduce the issue.
I have also confirmed that both the AMQ admin web page and the jconsole show
these messages as having been dequeued and a queue
Here's some additional log messages I'm seeing after a restart:
2008-02-21 13:59:25,068 [eckpoint Worker] WARN JDBCPersistenceAdapter
- Old message cleanup failed due to: SQL Exception: Java exception: 'GC
overhead limit exceeded: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError'.
2008-02-21 13:59:39,731 [eck
I'm occasionally seeing the following error message in my ActiveMQ 4.1.1 log,
when it happens all of my consumers block on opening connections..
2008-02-21 12:19:20,657 [eckpoint Worker] WARN JDBCPersistenceAdapter
- Old message cleanup failed due to: SQL Exception: Java exception: 'GC
o
I am getting the same error with SNAPSHOT-5.1:
21/02/2008 08:03:34,335 ERROR [ActiveMQ Connection Worker:
tcp://puccell/10.0.55.197:61616] (MessageManager.java:439) -
com.company_name.messaging.MessageManager::onException
javax.jms.JMSException: Channel was inactive for too long:
puccell/10.0.55.
Thanks Dejan, it worked!
And I am able to connect to the server using STOMP too.. this is great. :-)
Dejan Bosanac wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've run into the same problem with a simple authentication plugin once
> and
> solved it by removing everything from the config except the broker
> configurati
Hi,
some short questions on the amq message store..
Is it an enhancement of the HighPerformance Journal of the amq4x versions?
Is it faster then the (Howl - like) HighPerformance Journal of amq4?
Can I couple a database to it, so after a delay messages are persisted to
oracle for example?
I thi
I'm very sorry,,, them email sent by mistake...
I think ActiveMQ is great in features... it is the most advances JMS broker in
the open source market,
I wanted to ask about its stability and performance?
and if anyone is using it in production?
-
Be a
Hello everybody,
A
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
25 matches
Mail list logo
