[ANNOUNCE] Apache NMS AMQP 1.8.0 Released

I am pleased to announce the release of Apache NMS AMQP 1.8.0 client. Downloads are now available at: https://activemq.apache.org/components/nms/providers/amqp/downloads/apachenmsamqp-v180 This is the

[ANNOUNCE] Apache NMS API 1.8.0 Released

I am pleased to announce the release of Apache NMS API 1.8.0 Downloads are now available at: https://activemq.apache.org/components/nms/nms-api-downloads This updates the Apache NMS API to supporting .net standard 2.0 and also first official nuget package binary. Many thanks for all the

Re: JMS, Wildcard destination consumer, and Acknowledgements going to wrong queue

Hi If this is occurring, it sounds like a bug. This is a community project, so if you are able to create a unit test case that replicates the issue, it certainly help the community to validate if it is a bug or not, and also validate any fix the community may do. if you look here, for

Re: [ARTEMIS] Clustered broker with multiple live servers and shared JDBC-Store

Good old politics , fair enough. Re docker I think there is such a thing now as statefulservice think it was called petservice for a while before. But essentially gives you stateful disk. But totally get your reasons, half our decisions in life is due to internal politics :) Sent from my

Re: [ARTEMIS] Clustered broker with multiple live servers and shared JDBC-Store

Is there a reason you don’t look at replicates journal setup? Journal is the primary and most performant way to run, especially in a scalable way which is what multi master is about. JDBC really is just for retro users, you won’t get benefit from multi master as you will have the shared

Re: Using ActiveMQ For Distributed Replicated Cache

Apache Ignite (is ASF product in this space) Saying that if you want to do this, and not have consistency issue, if you design it so you publish the change event into the topic first and your app (including the instance that produces) consumes the data to update their local cache . This way

Re: Artemis 2.5.0 last value queue property is removed from the queue on broker restart

Don’t worry I managed to recreate the issue. created issue: ARTEMIS-1766 I copied your email into the issue. Also have raised to PR to fix this (including integration test) Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Mar 2018, at 17:01, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com>

Re: Artemis 2.5.0 last value queue property is removed from the queue on broker restart

Just been looking at this it seem we are not persisting it in the queue bindings. Can you raise a Jira Ticket for this? Hopefully we can get a fix in time for 2.5.1 Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Mar 2018, at 16:22, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: >

Re: Artemis 2.5.0 last value queue property is removed from the queue on broker restart

Are you able to provide an integration/test case to recreate this? Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Mar 2018, at 16:03, rbollarapu wrote: > > Hi > > I'm creating last-value queues using > > > true > > > I'm writing messages to these queues and the last-value property

Re: Artemis 2.5.0 - Startup fails when XSD validation cannot access Internet

gt; Best regards, > - Ilkka > > -Original Message- > From: Michael André Pearce [mailto:michael.andre.pea...@me.com] > Sent: 6. maaliskuuta 2018 10:51 > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: Artemis 2.5.0 - Startup fails when XSD validation cannot access > Interne

Re: Artemis 2.5.0 - Startup fails when XSD validation cannot access Internet

We can pull in this schema into the build so it’s included. Will try look at this today. Can you raise a JIRA? Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Mar 2018, at 07:39, Ilkka Virolainen wrote: > > Hello, > > After a recent change allowing splitting up the broker

Re: Artemis(2.4.0) JMS transactional session queue send/receive performance

Hi That is very low tbh. It looks like you have very slow disk io, not typical of data centre server grade modern disks. Is this an actual server? Or just your own personal desktop or something? Im taking this from your journal buffer timeout of 706 Your system could perform 0.14

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Travis CI for Artemis PR builds

This is great idea! I get so frustrated with these environment issues. +100 Some other advantages I could see we could implement if successful. run a Linux build and a macOS build eg to check bits like kqueue and or other os specific behaviours (aio fallback to nio) look to use appveyor for a

Re: [ARTEMIS 2.4] Question: Message grouping and selectors

Hi Could I suggest you use a JMS topic, which each of the consumers being a durable shared consumer where you use a separate consumer subscription for each filter. The issue I think you are hitting is that with a JMS Queue the is only a one core created and with message groups per group only

Re: Artemis - Move address/queue definitions out of Broker.xml

Hi Adi Today there isn’t one really. It is something also we need in my org, def worth raising a JIRA for the feature to be added, id put my plus 1 on it. Maybe you’d want to have a go at implementing? Cheers Mike Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Jan 2018, at 09:43, adirubin

Re: Artemis JMS Client All JAR

Hi Benjamin I can understand a little as classloader if the class would be different in two different jars. but if these are spec jars with the same class’s then it shouldn’t cause an issue as it shouldn’t matter which class gets loaded from which jar, because they should be the same. If

Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

My personal two cents is I think of 5.x as ActiveMQ Classic. And the next gen is ActiveMQ Artemis which has its own versioning. really it’s the Message outwards to user that just needs updating and being clear IMO. Cheers Mike Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:22, Christopher

Re: 2 broker clusetr, both brokers are live

Also I am assuming you have checked already that the master is not GC’ing and having a large pause due to gc or something like that. Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Sep 2017, at 19:43, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: > > https://activemq.apache.org/a

Re: 2 broker clusetr, both brokers are live

I am assuming you had possibly a temp network fault meaning the slave and master could not talk. Have you configured network pinger? If / when you have network issues possibly causing a split brain (master and slave cannot talk to each other) then the nodes also ping another device on the

Re: 2 broker clusetr, both brokers are live

https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/latest/network-isolation.html Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Sep 2017, at 19:41, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: > > I am assuming you had possibly a temp network fault meaning the slave and > master coul

Re: [Artemis 2.1-2.3] Configuration Reload on slave broker.xml causes slave to start/enable acceptors which disables backups

I’ve just tested manually (in a HA setup) that if you set delete policy to OFF which by default it is set to OFF, then queues and address do not get undeployed on reload. Eg queues and addresses if created in GUI or CLI remain. Only if you change/override that to FORCE would it remove an

Re: Artemis - Virtual Topic support

Hi Armand, ActiveMQ 5 is jms 1.1 spec, your use of virtual destinations(topic) if I understood right in active5 is sort of a pre cursor to the now jms 2.0 spec feature called shared durable subscriber. Artemis is JMS 2.0 so you can achieve the same.

Re: JBoss AMQ versus Artemis AMQ

t; because of the consequences. > > But thanks a lot for your answer > > Oliver > > >> Am 24.08.17 um 23:28 schrieb Michael André Pearce: >> Hi Oliver, >> >> Rather than answer this for a specific vendor as Apache spaces are meant to >> be vendor neutr

Re: JBoss AMQ versus Artemis AMQ

Hi Oliver, Rather than answer this for a specific vendor as Apache spaces are meant to be vendor neutral e.g. shouldn't be pushing /selling their products. You will find though on activemq site a list of known vendors providing such services. This is the same as probably most Apache open

Re: Artemis 2.2.0, last_value_queue not working with AMQP

This got merged so should be in the up coming 2.3.0 release for you. Sent from my iPhone > On 11 Aug 2017, at 21:30, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: > > I've just created a PR to add support for this on AMQP (including test case) > > h

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

Aug 2017, at 19:02, Justin Bertram <jbert...@redhat.com> wrote: > > As stated previously, I'm not in favor of using the initial connection only > for discovery as I think it's wasteful. > > > Justin > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Michael André Pearce <

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

ather than > the the details in the description of his problem. > > FWIW, I plan on implementing a new connector parameter to support ignoring > the topology because I think it will be useful for this use-case as well as > some others I've run across. > > > Justin >

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

. > That is, after all, what this thread is really about. > > > Justin > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Michael André Pearce < > michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > >> We saw this too when running cluster mode and static discovery before we >>

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

some support licensing as had to reduce cpu counts. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 17:31, Michael André Pearce < >> michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>> >>> The bit I'm getting at is it uses the discovery connection when

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

We saw this too when running cluster mode and static discovery before we moved to UDP and then finally went to single master cluster due to cost in some support licensing as had to reduce cpu counts. Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Aug 2017, at 17:31, Michael André Pearce <michael.and

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

t.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Michael André Pearce > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >> But what I'm saying is should it be that the discovery should happen but >> then the real connection is made from the returned topology. Lik

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

il.com> wrote: > > It is not a bug. People use this to feed an initial list than the topology > could be much bigger. > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:18 AM Michael André Pearce < > michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > >> To me this sounds like a bug, where you get tw

Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of received topology

To me this sounds like a bug, where you get two connections because you use two lists. as in why doesn't it use the topology list straight away? Fair enough for discovery of that topology is should temporarily make a connection using the static connections, but it should disconnect and

Re: when does ActiveMQ 6.x releases?

Currently there is no time line for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis to turn into 6.x afaik. Nor still any confirmation it will be renamed to that. It may just live in as it has been for the last few years. Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, It is used in production environments already (we are adopting it in my

Re: PooledConnectionFactory: createConnection results in log entry "Successfully connected to ..."

Hi Jochen, Excellent news, glad you have found and resolved your issue. Cheers, Mike Sent from my iPhone > On 7 Jul 2017, at 16:00, jochenw wrote: > > Hi, > > sorry, but the issue was a different one. It was my misunderstanding of the > idleTimeout property.

Re: A question about memory usage & jvm

The Java process will at the os level which is what you output from what I can tell, will be allocated 6gb if that's what you set the heap size to (Java will always actually use a little more than just the heap for bits like offheap, classes (permgen) and process overhead) The 70% is for

Re: PooledConnectionFactory: createConnection results in log entry "Successfully connected to ..."

Hi Jochen Could I suggest maybe looking at the test cases how they're using it and see what maybe different in your code? In particular look at testConnectionsArePooled

Re: PooledConnectionFactory: createConnection results in log entry "Successfully connected to ..."

The PooledConnectionFactory just pools created connections so that they can be reused. The connections are created as you've noted on createConnection. A really good description of its behaviour is written in doc see here:

Re: setting activemq artemis load balanced and HA

Hi Hassan As discussed on IRC, here is a deployment diagram we had for clustered artemis (multiple masters and ha slaves) within my org on physical hosts during our POC stages, i have had to strip a few bits, and rename some things, like wise are actually architecture we’re pushing out, is

Re: Artemis v2.1 Spring MessageListener Netty StackOverflow

Ignore you stated already this is tried. My apologies Sent from my iPad > On 1 Jul 2017, at 06:14, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: > > > The chm was removed in Feb, does this occur if you use 4.1.12? > > https://gi

Re: Artemis v2.1 Spring MessageListener Netty StackOverflow

The chm was removed in Feb, does this occur if you use 4.1.12? https://github.com/netty/netty/commit/84188395be36893b214fcf63cea1544e35b2a654 Sent from my iPad > On 1 Jul 2017, at 02:12, Clebert Suconic wrote: > > If you have a way to replicate it... Norman was

Re: Artemis rejects the clientid after client disconnection

Supplying/Posting thread dumps and log files would be advantageous, especially without any systematic way to reproduce via integration test. More info the better :) Locally I'm struggling to reproduce the issue using your broker xml and killing clients manually, but not able to reproduce so

Re: Artemis rejects the clientid after client disconnection

Also could you do a stack trace once it has failed the other option is the executors thread could blocked/deadlocked. Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Jun 2017, at 16:48, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: > > This would suggest an uncaught exceptio

Re: Artemis rejects the clientid after client disconnection

I mean to add the try catch within the runnable run method. Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Jun 2017, at 16:48, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: > > This would suggest an uncaught exception could be killing the executor thread. > > If you hav

Re: Artemis rejects the clientid after client disconnection

This would suggest an uncaught exception could be killing the executor thread. If you have a local build, Can you wrap the conn.fail method with a try catch (throwable t) See if that helps at all. Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Jun 2017, at 16:19, francesco81

Re: How to monitor artemis ?

Maybe rather than develop something new, is there scope to maybe add in Hawtio console to the Apache artemis build with the mentioned plugin , maybe if rh are kind enough would they donate the plugin? Also then some effort could be done to upgrade it to Hawtio 2 rather than spinning yet

Re: artemis 2.2.0 logging disaster

I note your on a Linux platform and epoll is activated as such buffers are direct (offheap), On the acceptors can you set useEpoll to false, you set this a url param. And see what this does for you? This should change the heap memory usage as buffers will be on heap but will help in finding

Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka?

temis after the native update.. just by > itself... > > > ActiveMQ Artemis is getting further and further away from hornetq. > it's evolving nicely IMO. > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Michael André Pearce > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote:

Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka?

@Justin As you noted, with all the changes since hornetq became artemis, is there an updated run of that same JMSspec but on 2.x artemis? It be great if there was. Just to see. Sent from my iPhone > On 5 Jun 2017, at 16:53, Justin Bertram wrote: > > Couple of things...

Re: artemis 2.2.0 logging disaster

If you have the ability (not sure if this is a dev or a prod env) as clebert mentions at there are some changes in master for MQTT protocol since 2.1.0 release, if you have any chance to build and deploy master? On the netty front there's a system property

Re: artemis 2.2.0 logging disaster

Also sorry just one other question. Does this occur with 2.1.0? Sent from my iPhone > On 2 Jun 2017, at 17:57, Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> > wrote: > > Essentially just from this log output I assume the server your broker is > running out of ra

Re: artemis 2.2.0 logging disaster

Essentially just from this log output I assume the server your broker is running out of ram to use. This can be either A) genuine memory leak in artemis B) you simply don't have enough ram for the load/throughout. Some questions: Is the load constant? Do you have server ram usage metrics

Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka?

MMap journal in activemq artemis has an option similar that means data is safe from process crash but not being sync allowing for higher throughout/lowerlatency you're happy with physical crash the data may not have flushed to disk which is what i understand from the below. Maybe suggest

Re: Storage usage is beyond max-disk-usage.

Set the config value to 100% if you don't wish the check to block before you have actual disk full, but it's actually saving you here from having disk filling fully and giving you a chance to get onto the broker to rectify. Question is why are you consumers not consuming messages or if you

Re: [Apachecon] Artemis presentation today

Will it be recorded or the slides online? Such a shame we are the other side of the pond. Hope it went well! Sent from my iPhone > On 16 May 2017, at 14:46, John D. Ament wrote: > > See you there and hopedully meet some more people there! > > On May 16, 2017 9:44 AM,