Gary Tully wrote:
you need to add the attribute: persistenceFlag=true
Hmm, I don't understand. Currently I put into activemq.xml:
bean xmlns=http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans;
id=forcePersistencyModeBroker
class=org.apache.activemq.plugin.ForcePersistencyModeBrokerPlugin
Hi ,
one day ,i encounted the follow problem
2010-07-10 11:12:00,040 [.178.1.68:37164] ERROR TransportConnector
- Could not accept connection : Timer already cancelled. (activemq.log)
The client counld not connect the server,
error:Caused by:
I have upgraded my gcc compiler to gcc 4.4 on the Debian environment (cf.
email below).
make check passed but I cannot run the examples. I still have the
segmentation fault error.
Anyone to advise?
Thank you.
Romain
On 16 July 2010 13:22, Romain CHANU romainch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Hello Felix,
I am using pure ActiveMQ MessageBroker v5.3.0 (see output below) - no FUSE
stuff.
The fact that the line:
Installing ForcePersistencyModeBroker plugin: persistency enforced=true
does not appear in my output does not mean that it would not work.
I think I have to find the correct,
can you try and build a test case, possibly a http version of:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/activemq/trunk/activemq-core/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/ReconnectWithSameClientIDTest.java?view=markup
On 16 July 2010 09:22, RJtokenlanring ing.marco.colo...@gmail.com wrote:
Any update?
Here is (attached) the test case that I have used.
If you connect to http the first time, connection is ok.
If you kill the JVM and the try to restart the test case, 'myclid already
connected from blockingQueue_' is always raised. Also after some hours. I
have to restart the broker in order to
//CODE
public class TestVaseClientID {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
ActiveMQConnectionFactory connectionFactory = new
ActiveMQConnectionFactory(user, default, http://192.168.100.88:61617;);
Connection
btw: what is your use case for using the http transport rather than
tcp? Is it firewall traversal?
On 16 July 2010 11:20, Gary Tully gary.tu...@gmail.com wrote:
this looks like a bug, can u raise a jira issue with this test code
and attach your broker side activemq.xml so the configuration of
this looks like a bug, can u raise a jira issue with this test code
and attach your broker side activemq.xml so the configuration of the
http server transport is visible.
I think it looks like the http transport should be creating a
faultolerant connectionInfo, because http is an async transport
We are in dilemma in which persistence option to use for activeMQ.
we tested both local disk and NFs version 4 .
The NFSv4 was very slow when compared to the speed of local disk.
But we will be more comfortable with a master-slave topology.
Can any one suggest what else can we think so ?
Can
Yes, the problem is the firewall. I need HTTP to do this.
Just one question: I don't have a JIRA account.
How can I submit this bug?
Regards
Gary Tully wrote:
btw: what is your use case for using the http transport rather than
tcp? Is it firewall traversal?
On 16 July 2010 11:20, Gary
you will need to create an account in the issue tracker:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ, there is no restriction
on account creation.
On 16 July 2010 11:42, RJtokenlanring ing.marco.colo...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the problem is the firewall. I need HTTP to do this.
Just one
Hi,
I have set up redelivery policy in Spring for ActiveMQ but it seems like it
doesn't work when I tested it. The rolledback transaction still caused the
message to be redelivered using the default settings e.g.
initialRedeliveryDelay=1000 and so on. Does this actually ever worked or is
there
Issue created:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2831
Thank you very much
Gary Tully wrote:
you will need to create an account in the issue tracker:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ, there is no restriction
on account creation.
--
View this message in context:
Hi, I am using activemq to implement my game. I have n number of game
tables and n number of players at each table. Right now, a queue is setup to
send all requests from all users of all tables. A request handler listens to
the queue, after the request arrives, it processes the request and
Dear all,
I am facing a quite strange behavior of ActiveMQ relating to storeUsage,
which blocks completely the delivery of persistent messages even if all
messages have been consumed.
My test case is the following:
- start the server;
- produce enough persistent messages in order to reach
I think the problem is reclaiming store space, it happens in chunks of
data file length, where journal data files are unreferenced by
messages they can be reclaimed.
Do you see data files being reclaimed? If not, try increasing the
clean up period and/or decreasing the journalMaxFile length.
On
Hi Gary,
Indeed you are right. My journalMaxFile was defined to 50mo, while the
storeUsage limit was defined to 10mo only... thus the chunk that was
used was never reclaimed, and induced a blocking behavior.
This also explains why from time to time the store percent used reports
values
QD,
I would go with one topic per table . Using selectors is possible but will
degrade performance and will also limit your options for achieving horizontal
scalability down the road.
-clark
-Original Message-
From: qin ding [mailto:qindi...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 09:07
use failover:(tcp://ip1:61616,tcp://ip2:61616)?randomize=false for both
producer and consumer. both brokers JDBC to mssql server (also tried on
mysql, same results)
start ip1 then ip2 so ip1 get the lock and is now the master;
shutdown ip1 (now ip2 got the lock and is the master), producer keep
thanks, Clark.
- Original Message
From: clark.obr...@ttmsolutions.com clark.obr...@ttmsolutions.com
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 11:56:28 AM
Subject: Re: Please Help
QD,
I would go with one topic per table . Using selectors is possible but will
degrade
use failover:(tcp://ip1:61616,tcp://ip2:61616)?randomize=false for both
producer and consumer. both brokers JDBC to mssql server (also tried on
mysql, same results)
start ip1 then ip2 so ip1 get the lock and is now the master;
shutdown ip1 (now ip2 got the lock and is the master), producer keep
22 matches
Mail list logo
