On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:39 -0700, ironrooster wrote:
> Tim,
> Thanks for responding so quickly! You are correct, there is some complex
> issue that apparently has nothing to do with AMQ. I won't belabor the point
> since the problem is now solved - or at least underground - but FYI we are
> using AMQ in a DLL called from LabVIEW. I think that there was a problem
> with the LabVIEW system. Thanks again for your quick response.
>
>
Great, always glad to hear that I don't need to do anything. Thanks for
letting us know.
Regards
Tim.
>
> Timothy Bish wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 18:44 -0800, ironrooster wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I'm having a similar issue: using activeme-cpp 3.1.1, there is a large
> >> memory leak when sending text messages. Here's a code snippet:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's the setup in my run method:
> >> {
> >> // Create a ConnectionFactory
> >> auto_ptr<ConnectionFactory> connectionFactory(
> >> ConnectionFactory::createCMSConnectionFactory( brokerURI ) );
> >>
> >> // Create a Connection
> >> connection = connectionFactory->createConnection();
> >> connection->start();
> >>
> >> // Create a Session
> >> session = connection->createSession( Session::AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE );
> >>
> >> // Create the destination
> >> destination = session->createTopic( topicName );
> >>
> >> // Create a MessageProducer from the Session to the Topic or
> >> Queue
> >> producer = session->createProducer( destination );
> >> producer->setDeliveryMode( DeliveryMode::NON_PERSISTENT );
> >>
> >> // Wait until the caller tells us we're done.
> >> doneLatch.await();
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> void Producer::sendMessage( const std::string& messageArg)
> >> {
> >> TextMessage* message = session->createTextMessage( messageArg );
> >> producer->setTimeToLive( 10000 );
> >> producer->send( message );
> >> delete message;
> >> } // End of sendMessage()
> >>
> >>
> >> If I comment out the producer->send() line, no leak. Any help would be
> >> appreciated! Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If you can provide a *complete* example of your code that demonstrates
> > the issue I'd be glad to look into it. The current samples and test
> > have all been run through valgrind with no leaks reported so there must
> > be something unique to your test case that's not been tested yet.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tim.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Timothy Bish wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 07:14 -0800, opernas wrote:
> >> >> Version is 3.1.0
> >> >>
> >> > Please give 3.1.1 a try as there were several fixes in that release for
> >> > memory leaks.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Timothy Bish wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 03:45 -0800, opernas wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like I said, this issue occurred with my app but in
> >> SimpleProducer.cpp
> >> >> >> sample too. If you take SimpleProducer.cpp and put DeliverMode flag
> >> to
> >> >> >> PERSISTENT (instead of NON_PERSISTENT).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== 160 bytes in 20 blocks are definitely lost in loss record
> >> 27
> >> >> of
> >> >> >> 40
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== at 0x40253C5: operator new(unsigned int)
> >> >> >> (vg_replace_malloc.c:214)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== by 0x4313A16:
> >> >> >> activemq::core::ActiveMQSession::send(cms::Message*,
> >> >> >> activemq::core::ActiveMQProducer*, activemq::util::Usage*)
> >> >> (Pointer.h:45)
> >> >> >> ==3085== by 0x430843E:
> >> >> >> activemq::core::ActiveMQProducer::send(cms::Destination const*,
> >> >> >> cms::Message*, int, int, long long) (ActiveMQProducer.cpp:197)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== by 0x43065F6:
> >> >> >> activemq::core::ActiveMQProducer::send(cms::Destination const*,
> >> >> >> cms::Message*) (ActiveMQProducer.cpp:134)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== by 0x43074FA:
> >> >> >> activemq::core::ActiveMQProducer::send(cms::Message*)
> >> >> >> (ActiveMQProducer.cpp:102)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== by 0x8049F4D: SimpleProducer::run() (prueba.cpp:126)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== by 0x804928A: main (prueba.cpp:227)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ==3085== LEAK SUMMARY:
> >> >> >> ==3085== definitely lost: 7,280 bytes in 40 blocks
> >> >> >> ==3085== indirectly lost: 10,406 bytes in 468 blocks
> >> >> >> ==3085== possibly lost: 784 bytes in 6 blocks
> >> >> >> ==3085== still reachable: 28 bytes in 1 blocks
> >> >> >> ==3085== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is in the producer->send() call... but I dont know if I've some
> >> >> mistake,
> >> >> >> or
> >> >> >> if a put PERSISTENT, i need to do something else... i've tried
> >> >> different
> >> >> >> ackwnoledge methods, but i've still loosing memory.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It would help to know the version of the client you are using. The
> >> >> most
> >> >> > recent 3.1.1 release has several memory and resource leak fixes in
> >> it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Tim Bish
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> >> >> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/tabish121
> >> >> > My Blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Tim Bish
> >> >
> >> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> >> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >> >
> >> > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/tabish121
> >> > My Blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Tim Bish
> >
> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> >
> > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/tabish121
> > My Blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Tim Bish
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/tabish121
My Blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
