On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 03:55:29PM -0400, Christian Posta wrote:
> So it looks like its working as expected. In both cases (producer flow
> control on or off) you won't reach your memory limits because the pending
> cursor is spooling to disk. So looks sane to me.
Ah, brilliant. So my misundersta
So it looks like its working as expected. In both cases (producer flow
control on or off) you won't reach your memory limits because the pending
cursor is spooling to disk. So looks sane to me.
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013, Jesus Roncero wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any extra info on this?
>
> Regards
>
>
> On
Hi,
Any extra info on this?
Regards
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Jesus Roncero wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:34:03AM -0700, Christian Posta wrote:
> > When you have producer flow control enabled, your producers should block
> > when you've reached the memory limits (50mb). If you ca
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:34:03AM -0700, Christian Posta wrote:
> When you have producer flow control enabled, your producers should block
> when you've reached the memory limits (50mb). If you can write a unit test
> that shows otherwise, I would gladly take a look.
Hi Christian,
again thanks f
Inline
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Jesus Roncero wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:57:01AM -0700, Christian Posta wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> further on this:
>
> > Sounds like it's happening exactly as you have it configured.. I assume
> > you're using non-persistent messages?
> >
> > As Joha
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Jesus Roncero wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:45:30AM -0700, Christian Posta wrote:
> > Oh I see... because you have producer flow control turned off. The memory
> > limits won't be taken into account, even when their full. You would have
> to
> > plan around t
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:45:30AM -0700, Christian Posta wrote:
> Oh I see... because you have producer flow control turned off. The memory
> limits won't be taken into account, even when their full. You would have to
> plan around that in subsequent configuration details, in this case you're
> us
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:57:01AM -0700, Christian Posta wrote:
Hi,
further on this:
> Sounds like it's happening exactly as you have it configured.. I assume
> you're using non-persistent messages?
>
> As Johan pointed out, your config kinda doesn't make sense :)
>
> The is an overall broke
Oh I see... because you have producer flow control turned off. The memory
limits won't be taken into account, even when their full. You would have to
plan around that in subsequent configuration details, in this case you're
using file pending message cursor for the queue subscriptions which, when
h
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:03:15AM -0700, Christian Posta wrote:
> was just thinking... for question #3, it would make sense if the overall
> broker memory was 500MB and your temp was 100MB... then when you hit the
> cursor high water mark at some point (70%) it would spook to disk and
> overload t
On 05/06/2013 16:57, Christian Posta wrote:
> Sounds like it's happening exactly as you have it configured.. I assume
> you're using non-persistent messages?
Thanks for your help.
Yes, I know it doesn't make sense. I'm working on an existing
configuration which is obviously wrong, and I'm trying t
was just thinking... for question #3, it would make sense if the overall
broker memory was 500MB and your temp was 100MB... then when you hit the
cursor high water mark at some point (70%) it would spook to disk and
overload the temp... in that case, you have to ensure the temp storage is
sufficien
Sounds like it's happening exactly as you have it configured.. I assume
you're using non-persistent messages?
As Johan pointed out, your config kinda doesn't make sense :)
The is an overall broker limit. That is, if you set your
then you want to keep the aggregate of all of
your destinations <=
Do it the other way around.
The system and store settings are global, the others per destination.
So what you are doing doesn't make a ton of sense.
On Jun 5, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Jesus Roncero wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a testing activeMQ installation that I'm trying to test regarding
> diffe
Hi all,
I've got a testing activeMQ installation that I'm trying to test regarding
different limits on destinations and memory usage in general, with and without
flowControl enable. I'm running into some issues and I don't quite understand
how this works, so I would appreciate any tips or advise h
15 matches
Mail list logo
