Re: Artems: ParallelGC vs CMS

2017-02-07 Thread Francesco Nigro
Hi! Just as a chrioisty, do you have tried G1 too? Il mar 7 feb 2017, 22:07 abhijith ha scritto: > Hi, > > Has there any test done for Artemis using CMS GC? > > Context: We were using default parallel GC with 6G RAM and were facing an > issue where old gen was filling up without full GC being

Artems: ParallelGC vs CMS

2017-02-07 Thread abhijith
Hi, Has there any test done for Artemis using CMS GC? Context: We were using default parallel GC with 6G RAM and were facing an issue where old gen was filling up without full GC being run. We use Netty Transport configuration and have one master/slave setup with static configuration. Our mo

Re: Non-persistent jms message get lost for non durable subscriber.

2017-02-07 Thread Timothy Bish
Check the configuration of the Constant Pending Message Limit Strategy: http://activemq.apache.org/slow-consumer-handling.html this could be tripping you up. On 02/07/2017 01:06 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: Since you are looking on other possibilities, take a look on http://activemq.apache.org/ar

Re: Non-persistent jms message get lost for non durable subscriber.

2017-02-07 Thread Clebert Suconic
Since you are looking on other possibilities, take a look on http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/ as well? Anyways, a non persistence message should be available to be received as long as you didn't stop the broker. The non persistent message means the message doesn't need to survive an eventual

Non-persistent jms message get lost for non durable subscriber.

2017-02-07 Thread smith420
I have started with ActiveMQ just one day ago, so my knowledge on it is limited.My target is to check the ActiveMQ stability and throughput in different scenario for JMS message.So, following is one scenario.1. I am publishing 1 mil non-persistent synchronous messages to topic and subscribing it sy

Re: ARTEMIS: bad-performance behaviour after 7-10 days of usage

2017-02-07 Thread francesco81
Hi Martyn, I'll be happy to enjoy the IRC chat as soon as I can. Effectively, your words about the "treating as new subscription" would explain the issue with retained messages. However there's still something that I don't understand: for example why also the non-retained messages are resent on res