I noticed a similar trend of spikes in latency when I was testing AMQ
5.3.0/5.3.2, and I could link them to log entries for opening new kahadb
journal files. In our case it was tied to synchronous disk IO performance, but
it was still faster than what we needed, so we didn't worry about tuning
Have you tried prefetch=0 ? I was doing some similar testing a while ago and
as I recall, prefetch=0 was the setting that behaved best for my round-robin
consumer setup.
From: Joe Smith [mailto:joesmithc...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 5:32 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject
ActiveMQ can talk to IBM's MQ via the "jmsBridgeConnectors"
http://activemq.apache.org/jms-to-jms-bridge.html . There was a bug after AMQ
5.2.0 until 5.5 that prevented it, but I've tested it in 5.5 successfully. I
defined a remote ConnectionFactory like so:
Maybe that page is wrong, SESSION_TRANSACTED is part of Session...
http://download.oracle.com/javaee/1.4/api/javax/jms/Session.html#SESSION_TRANSACTED
-Original Message-
From: IBeaumont [mailto:ibeaum...@cdcsoftware.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:18 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
I think that's kinda funny, really. ActiveMQ's website has a warning about
potential problems with locking under NFSv3,
http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html and IBM MQ's
similar "multi-instance" mode *requires* NFSv4 for "proper lock handling."
I only briefly teste
s. We use the
web console to look for top backed up queues as a result, though.
Hope this helps.
- edan
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Your-favorite-AMQ-monitoring-tool-tp3163580p3165291.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I have 600+ queues in a single ActiveMQ 5.3.2 broker connected to 4
webMethods consumers using the flag "?consumer.exclusive=true" in order to
guarantee FIFO-ness / strict ordering of each queue across the 4 consumers.
We may have other troubles with respect to trying to process hundreds of
queue
Gary Tully wrote:
>
> you need to change
> the
> org.apache.activemq.jndi.ActiveMQInitialContextFactory.createConnectionFactory(Hashtable)
> method to optionally create an ActiveMQXAConnectionFactory
> I think it would be a sensible default but having a property that can
> ensure
> that a partic
some trickiness I don't understand. Should I just dig into the initial
factory java code a bit more?
I appreciate any help; it's been enjoyable getting to know the software.
- edan
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ%27s-JNDI-does-not-resolve-XAConnectionFactory-tp27936255p27936255.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
