Re: Sent + Pending should equal Received, no?

restart the broker subsequently, it again complains about not being able to recover 8 messages('already dispatched') Jason Jason Rosenberg wrote: Ok, I enabled DEBUG logging on the broker, and now I see this on restart: 2008-02-10 03:52:43,645 [127.0.0.1:64511] DEBUG

Re: Sent + Pending should equal Received, no?

I just tried clicking on purge in the webconsole, on a queue that seemed to have messages stuck in the pending state. After the purge, it now shows that it has -4 messges pending. Should it ever be a negative number of messages pending? Jason Jason Rosenberg wrote: I have a scenario

Re: Sent + Pending should equal Received, no?

of messages that are in various states (e.g. cached, redelivered, recovered, rolled-back, etc.)... Or is it likely a bug altogether... Fun stuff Jason Jason Rosenberg wrote: I just tried clicking on purge in the webconsole, on a queue that seemed to have messages stuck in the pending state

Re: Transport failed, attempting to automatically reconnect due to...

ideas about what's going there... Jason RHeil wrote: Jason Rosenberg wrote: Don't know if you are using connection poolingI've solved this issue by setting the idle timeout to 0 (infinite timeout), for pooled connections.Unfortunately, the PooledConnectionFactory doesn't expose

problem with messages 'pending' and redelivery, after broker restart

I'm having an issue with amq 5.1-SNAPSHOT, when stopping and restarting the broker. I'll process a batch of messages through my application. I'll look on the webconsole, and see that all queues have no messages pending. I then shutdown the broker. Often, when I bring the broker back up, the

Re: problem with messages 'pending' and redelivery, after broker restart

in the webconsole (but none of the consumers try to consume these) So, I'm thinking it's not to do with cleanupInterval? Although a little more explanation on 'cleanupInterval' would be appreciated (as well as most of the other params that are pretty lightly documented) Jason Jason

Sent + Pending should equal Received, no?

I have a scenario, with amq 5.1 Where more messages are being received than are sent. Should that be possible? It looks like indeed some of the messages are getting delivered twice, and tallied as such in the webconsole view of the queueIs there some setting I need to place on my

Re: Transport failed, attempting to automatically reconnect due to...

Hi, Don't know if you are using connection poolingI've solved this issue by setting the idle timeout to 0 (infinite timeout), for pooled connections.Unfortunately, the PooledConnectionFactory doesn't expose the idleTimeout property, so I sub-classed it as a work-around. I've filed an

Re: ActiveMQ 5: Keepalive problems

All, In my case, the issue is related to using connection pooling, which don't expose the idleTimeout property... I've created a work-around outlined in AMQ-1578, which is specific to the connection pooling case. Now my sessions stay alive Jason Jason Rosenberg wrote: Hi, I am

Re: Test-case for problem with connections not refreshing when pooled with failover

All, I've filed an issue, and posted a patch for 5.1-SNAPSHOT, for this issue (I've taken hbuch's patch and put it into the 5.1 source)... See AMQ-1575 Jason -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Timeout-and-Failover-on-a-queue-tp13292887s2354p15328072.html Sent from the

Re: ActiveMQ failover url problems

I think the uri parsing doesn't like nested '?'sProbably a bug? But, if you have '?' inside the parens, then you can't use one outside the parens... So, you might have: failover:(tcp://myserver?wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration=0)maxReconnectDelay=1000 Jason ramj2ee wrote: If I use

Re: How to use TransportListener with FailoverTransport

I've created an issue to track this: AMQ-1575 I've posted a patch there, created originally by 'hbruch' Jason Jason Rosenberg wrote: Rob, The attempt to get a connection over the failover transport hangs (it goes into it's reconnect sequence indefinitely) What I'd like

Broker concurrency and connection pooling in amq 5

I was reading some old discussion threads on connection pooling. There seems to be some conflicting information, specifically whether it's a good idea to pool connections. I have been using the jencks-amqpool package for pooling connections (and also trying the pool package within

Efficiency of CompositeDestinations From Producer standpoint

Hello, I am interested in looking at using the Composite Destinations feature to send messages simultaneously to multiple queues. I'm wondering if sending will likely be any slower from the producer's standpoint, than sending to a single queue? Does the broker send the message to both queues

Difference between Jencks AMQPool and AMQ's builtin Pooling...

I've been using the Jencks AMQPool library. However, it seems to be no longer actively maintained. I'm wondering if the Connection Pooling now in the main ActiveMQ core is more current and solves the same issues AMQPool was designed for? Also, are there any known dependencies with regards

Re: ActiveMQ 5: Keepalive problems

Hi, I am having the same issue, this doesn't appear fixed, to me I'm using a 5.1-SNAPSHOT dated 1/31 With this broker uri: failover:(tcp://localhost:61616,tcp://localhost:61617)?initialReconnectDelay=20maxReconnectDelay=900randomize=false I get this error, if I try to use a

FailoverTransport in 5.1 seems to make more noise...

All, I've been testing with AMQ 5.1-SNAPSHOT, using the FailoverTransport. I'm using TcpTransport as the underyling transport. I've noticed that is seems to report more on the logging level, items that might have previously been reported with [DEBUG] are now [INFO] or [WARN]. This is causing

Should it be ok to use 4.1.1 on client side, with 5.1 broker?

Hello, I've been able to upgrade successfully so far to activemq 5.1-SNAPSHOT. However, I am seeing some issues with the client-side, primarily in the logging output coming from the FailoverTransport (another issue, another post) Anyway, in the mean-time, I'm wondering if it is a valid

Is there a time-frame for a 5.1 release

Just wondering if there's a guideline time-frame for a 5.1 release. I'm wanting to upgrade to 5.1, but management is leary of upgrading to a snapshot version, for obvious reasons! Jason -- View this message in context:

Problem with message redelivery, after upgrade from 4.1.1 to 5.0.0

Hi, I wonder if there's a quick/obvious explanation to help me past this one (if not, I'll post more details of my particular use case). Basically, after upgrading to 5.0.0 from 4.1.1, everything seems to be working fine, except, each time I restart my client (without restarting the

Re: Problem with message redelivery, after upgrade from 4.1.1 to 5.0.0

so far... I ended up adding the transactionManager to the DefaultMessageListenerContainer spring config (previously it was being set on the PooledConnectionPool object). Jason Jason Rosenberg wrote: Hi, I wonder if there's a quick/obvious explanation to help me past this one

Test-case for problem with connections not refreshing when pooled with failover

/failover_test_ws.source.tar failover_test_ws.source.tar James.Strachan wrote: On 27/11/2007, Jason Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James, In this case, I am creating a connection for the purspose of sending a message (so not a message listener). I am using the Spring JmsOperations template

Re: Timeout and Failover on a queue

that the FailoverTransport, if configured without maxReconnectAttempts, doesn't shutdown cleanly, if there's no broker present. It hangs, or throws an exception. I provide the destroy-method=stop on the pooled connection factory object. Thanks for any help, Jason James.Strachan wrote: On 26/11/2007, Jason

Re: How to use TransportListener with FailoverTransport

http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/ On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:12 PM, Jason Rosenberg wrote: Hello, I am trying to implement a solution based on the TransportListener, in order to use the FailoverTransport. Basically, I don't want to use the maxReconnectAttempts param for FailoverTransport

How to use TransportListener with FailoverTransport

Hello, I am trying to implement a solution based on the TransportListener, in order to use the FailoverTransport. Basically, I don't want to use the maxReconnectAttempts param for FailoverTransport, because I want it to be self-recovering, and to continue retrying, etc. But, I do need it to

Problem getting a clean shutdown, with tomcat, activemq, jencks....

Hi, I am having trouble getting a clean shutdown. I am using tomcat, with Spring, activeMQ, and Jencks I am using the Spring's DefaultMessageListenerContainer. I have included the exception below. It's spurious, and sometimes the threads just seem to hang (also included a hung thread

Redelivery sticks to and blocks a consumer thread

All, I have been experimenting with using exponentialBackOff as a redelivery policy. I have multiple parallel consumers. I'm using AMQ 4.1.1, using Spring's DefaultMessageListener, within Tomcat 6. I've noticed that when a message consumer has a failure, and throws an exception, and the

First redelivery attempt seems to be immediate

I've been experimenting with redelivery, after a message processing failure. If I set an initialDeliveryDelay, it doesn't seem to apply to the first redelivery attempt, which appears to consumed immediately after the initial message processing failure. Subsequent redeliveries then do seem to

missing activeio-core in standard maven2 repository...

I've been using maven2, to work with activemq It seems recently that the standard maven2 repository seems to have misplaced the activeio-core artifactit was there apparently a month or so agobut now it's missing I get repeatedly this message when running Maven: Downloading:

Re: Deadlock condition, producer in waitForSpace, consumer slow, etc.

-producer-blocks.html On 5/15/07, Jason Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I'm just using ActiveMQ for the first time. I've encountered a deadlock condition, that appears rooted in the ActiveMQ internals. I'm not sure if this is a known problem or not. I've been able to work around