Hey There- I'm not gonna be of much help off the bat but can certainly commiserate with you. I'm trying to achieve the same goal with similar message loads and am getting frustrated too.
Are you guys running multiple brokers using the network-of-brokers configuration? What I'm seeing right now is roughly once/day the two brokers in my cluster disconnect from each other and then reconnect to each other. It's disruptive to the whole system. I'm happy to trade off message loss for increased performance and reliability too. ---Marc ________________________________ From: MassDosage <massdos...@gmail.com> To: users@activemq.apache.org Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:39:59 PM Subject: Options for preferring stability over reliability We are using ActiveMQ quite extensively at Last.fm and are experiencing a number of issues related to the huge load we are putting on it (at peak times up to thousands of messages per second). We are using it in a number of different scenarios but our general use case is that we would much rather lose hundreds of messages than have deadlocks, out of memory errors and crashes. We have turned off producer flow control, set persistence to false, are using async send, short expiry times on messages etc. Even with this setup we still regularly (several times per week) run into instances where ActiveMQ completely fails us - ranging from Out of Memory Exceptions in the server to blocked Senders to the entire system locking up/freezing with nothing useful in the log files. These situations force us to restart the ActiveMQ server regularly and have brought the affected part of our service to their knees. Ideally this would never happen and in times of heavy load Senders would not block but instead would drop messages and the server would do the same instead of running out of memory. Are we missing some configuration/API options we can use to ensure this behaviour? Does anyone have any suggestions? I am happy to post our activemq.xml and code samples if necessary. I can understand that many of your use cases require reliability and that you have built much of the system to ensure as few messages get dropped as possible but we really want the opposite - a system that never goes down or causes deadlocks and we are willing to lose as many messages as it takes to allow for this. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Options-for-preferring-stability-over-reliability-tp22852174p22852174.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
