>
>
>
> I think there's a limit to how many redelivery attempts you're willing to
> take before to send the message to the DLQ, which I think would cover most
> scenarios when that would happen in the wild. (You could always construct
> an arbitrarily bad failure case, but the odds of actually see
I'm glad you were able to resolve the issue; it's possible you simply ran
out of space in your KahaDB instance but didn't have the limits set to keep
you from running off the edge, though I'm surprised that didn't result in
exceptions in the logs if that's really what it was. Seems strange.
Re: #
Apparently I did have a different definition in mind: I was interpreting
"redistribution" as "redelivery", which would happen when a transaction was
rolled back or a client disconnected with unacknowledged messages. Clearly
that's not what Artemis means by that term, and what's meant is clearly no
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Burton wrote:
> sorry for the delay in reply. was dealing with a family issue that I
> needed to prioritize...
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
>
> > Right off the top, can't you use INDIVIDUAL_ACK here, rather than
> > committing trans
That depends what you mean by "trace". If you mean "get counts per
destination at a point in time, so you can subtract the values at two times
to find the number of messages in that time period", you can use the web
console or JMX to get that information. If you mean something else, please
explai
Oh nice. I'll take a look at this. This might be just what I need... it
adds complexity but better than refactoring my code if I can avoid it ;)
Kevin
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Martin Lichtin wrote:
> Your problem sounds a bit more complex, but just wanted to mentioned that
> one can s
sorry for the delay in reply. was dealing with a family issue that I
needed to prioritize...
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
> Right off the top, can't you use INDIVIDUAL_ACK here, rather than
> committing transactions? That seems like the ideal mode to let you choose
> which
Oh well ... got it working now. I did not inject the TransactionManager
into the XaPooledConnectionFactory.
That took a while to figure out.
Christian
On 30.10.2015 23:32, Christian Schneider wrote:
I tested with an external broker now and the message is consumed so it
is not rolled back at al
I tested with an external broker now and the message is consumed so it
is not rolled back at all.
As I am quite sure the XA transaction happens and is rolled back my
assumption is that the ActiveMQXASession does not participate in the
transaction.
I thought the bean org.apache.activemq.jms.pool.
The Bookrepository uses Aries JPA. The class is marked @Transactional.
So it will start an XA transaction before each call or join one.
For the camel route that start with jms: the JMSComponent is injected
with a PlatformTransactionManager. This causes camel to start a
transaction before recei
What is the actual code doing XA? I look at the examples and I
couldn't pinpoint one.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> I am currently doing a demo for XA transactions that should show how to
> combine JMS and JPA in one transaction.
>
> My code is at:
> https://github
I am currently doing a demo for XA transactions that should show how to
combine JMS and JPA in one transaction.
My code is at:
https://github.com/Talend/tesb-rt-se/tree/ebook-example/examples/tesb/ebook
I am pretty sure my setup for the XA Transactions is correct now. In my
logs I see that JMS
Thanks Tim
The active consumers will send a 'subscribe' message when starting and a
'unsubscribe' message when stopping.
I figure that I should know the no. of active consumers at any stage
They all do similar calculations simultaneously and so the sending of each
prospective trade takes place w
See below for answer to the questions. Here's some more information on
changes made that seem to have gotten things working. The logs showed a
message -
Getting Worried {org.apache.activemq.FreeDiskSpaceLeft: WARNING Store limit
is 33205 mb, whilst the data directory:
/opt/jboss-fuse-pre-patched-6
the message is always sent to the host where it is being produced...
it will later be redistributed over demand.
AFAIK AMQ5 would be the same?
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Justin Bertram wrote:
> I'm a bit confused by your comment, Tim.
>
> When I think of "first-time distribution" I think
Is there a way to trace all messages passing through a broker?
In that way I could verify what load the server is under.
>Statically including all destinations will send messages for all
>destinations to the central broker when all consumers are offline, even if
>the consumers will only ever be
I'm a bit confused by your comment, Tim.
When I think of "first-time distribution" I think of when the message arrives
on the cluster for the first time and it is distributed to a node with a
matching consumer. Artemis supports this for consumers with selectors.
When I think of "redistributi
This isn't redistribution, it's first-time distribution: the question is
about messages produced while the queue consumer is disconnected. And that
definitely does work in ActiveMQ.
On Oct 29, 2015 9:14 PM, "Clebert Suconic"
wrote:
> Ah... based on selectors...
>
> I don't think ActiveMQ5 suppor
Do you have any evidence that advisory messages about hundreds of empty
queues actually has a measurable impact on either your central broker or
your edge brokers? It's definitely possible that the overhead of advisory
messages really is too high, but if you haven't measured it somehow and
you're
It's not possible for a consumer to know the number of producers. Well,
it's possible via JMX, but it's not desirable. The whole point of JMS is
that it decouples producers and consumers so they don't have to know about
each other.
If you're going to need to wait for N publishers to send message
Can you post your publisher code? Have you stepped through it with a
debugger to confirm that the publish is happening without errors or
exceptions (if it uses a technology that's conducive to debuggers)?
Also, do I understand correctly that "2 Consumers with no message Enqueued
or Dequeued" mean
21 matches
Mail list logo
