prefetch=0 will do it, so long as you don't use a messagelistener directly. via spring the listener does a receive(...) under the hood so it will be ok with prefetch=0
On 14 November 2013 16:14, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolp...@imemories.com> wrote: > After I say you wrote 'prefetchExtension=false' I looked it up and found > this bug sounds exactly like what I'm hitting: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2651 which led me to you talking > on > http://grokbase.com/t/activemq/users/103bdh5cgx/prefetchextension-off-by-1-for-transacted-consumers-with-prefetchsize-0 > > So... right now I have prefetch=1.... and I'm using 5.3.0. WIth the grails > jms (spring) plugin, its auto-ack for messages, and they are in a > transaction. So it sounds like I'm hitting this. Does > prefetchExtension=false exist in 5.3? (Looks like it was fixed in 5.4) > Should I really be using prefetch=0? In this one queue, I have 16 > listeners now, and messages are usually in groups < 10 but take a long time > to process. (hours) > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> can you try a different ack mode, like clientack or using transactions >> - the prefetch will be deferred till the ack which will be later than >> in the auto ack case. Also, in the transacted case, use the >> destination policy prefetchExtension=false >> >> On 13 November 2013 14:54, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolp...@imemories.com> wrote: >> > Did anyone have an idea into what I could do different to route messages >> to >> > idle consumers? Just came into the same situation this morning where a >> > queue has 1 message processing on one consumer, one message waiting, and >> 15 >> > idle consumers. (See notes below for my current configs) >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolp...@imemories.com >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Forgot to add, broker url only has one query param.... >> >> >> >> jms.prefetchPolicy.queuePrefetch=1 >> >> >> >> which, as I mentioned above, does seem to work. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolp...@imemories.com >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> I can see the preFetch values being set in the console, and they are >> all >> >>> one. I've not set priorities. >> >>> >> >>> These are 'java' processes, using groovy/grails. The same executable >> on 4 >> >>> boxes, each executable with 4 listeners, treaded. Using the grails jms >> >>> plugin, which wraps the Spring jms template configuration. >> >>> (concurrentConsumers is set to 4 per instance) >> >>> >> >>> When I have 1000's of messages pending, all instances are working. This >> >>> issue is only really viewable when there is 10 messages working. >> >>> >> >>> The following is the (redacted) activemq.xml. I'm assuming this config >> >>> could be better. I should mention typical usage of our JMS server has >> a >> >>> few consumers and tons of producers. Thirty queues. Most queues process >> >>> quickly and do not fill up. Two queues are for slow producers. The >> goal is >> >>> for the producers to send a message and break away, so we don't want >> slow >> >>> producers at all. Producers are very spiky.... from 10m/min to bursts >> of >> >>> 100's/min. We have growth concern as that number is increasing >> steadily. >> >>> >> >>> <beans >> >>> xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans"; >> >>> xmlns:amq="http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core"; >> >>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; >> >>> xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans >> >>> http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-2.0.xsd >> >>> http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core >> >>> http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core/activemq-core.xsd";> >> >>> >> >>> <bean >> >>> >> class="org.springframework.beans.factory.config.PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer"> >> >>> <property name="locations"> >> >>> <value>file:${activemq.base}/conf/credentials.properties</value> >> >>> </property> >> >>> </bean> >> >>> >> >>> <broker xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core"; >> >>> brokerName="stagingMQ" >> >>> useJmx="true" >> >>> enableStatistics="true" >> >>> useLocalHostBrokerName="false" >> >>> useLoggingForShutdownErrors="true" >> >>> dataDirectory="XXXXX"> >> >>> >> >>> <managementContext> >> >>> <managementContext createConnector="true" >> >>> connectorPort="XXXXX"/> >> >>> </managementContext> >> >>> >> >>> <persistenceAdapter> >> >>> <journaledJDBC journalLogFiles="5" >> >>> journalLogFileSize="20 Mb" >> >>> dataDirectory="XXXXXX" >> >>> createTablesOnStartup="false" >> >>> useDatabaseLock="false" >> >>> dataSource="#XXXXX"> >> >>> </journaledJDBC> >> >>> </persistenceAdapter> >> >>> >> >>> <destinationPolicy> >> >>> <policyMap> >> >>> <policyEntries> >> >>> <policyEntry topic=">" producerFlowControl="true" >> >>> memoryLimit="1mb"> >> >>> <pendingSubscriberPolicy> >> >>> <vmCursor /> >> >>> </pendingSubscriberPolicy> >> >>> </policyEntry> >> >>> <policyEntry queue=">" producerFlowControl="true" memoryLimit="30mb"> >> >>> <pendingQueuePolicy> >> >>> <vmQueueCursor/> >> >>> </pendingQueuePolicy> >> >>> </policyEntry> >> >>> </policyEntries> >> >>> </policyMap> >> >>> </destinationPolicy> >> >>> >> >>> <transportConnectors> >> >>> <transportConnector name="openwire" uri="XXXX"/> >> >>> <transportConnector name="stomp" uri="XXXXX"/> >> >>> </transportConnectors> >> >>> >> >>> </broker> >> >>> >> >>> <import resource="jetty.xml"/> >> >>> <import resource="databaseconfig.xml"/> >> >>> </beans> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Paul Gale <paul.n.g...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Have you verified via broker logging that the prefetch values you've >> >>>> configured are being honored by the broker? Are consumer priorities in >> >>>> use? Are your consumers instances of the same executable or are they >> >>>> implemented individually? >> >>>> >> >>>> Can you post your broker configuration: activemq.xml? >> >>>> >> >>>> How are your clients implemented, e.g., technology: Ruby or Java etc, >> >>>> choice of client libraries? Just wondering. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Paul >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ned Wolpert < >> ned.wolp...@imemories.com> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > Thanks for the response... >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Any idea on the round-robin not working? I have a queue with 16 >> >>>> consumers, >> >>>> > all have pre-fetch set to 1. Five consumers are actively processing >> >>>> > requests and 3 requests are pending.... the 11 other consumers are >> >>>> idle. >> >>>> > History has shown that a new request may go to one of the 11 idle >> >>>> works, >> >>>> > but its like those 3 requests are reserved for some of the working >> >>>> ones. I >> >>>> > can't figure out what setting would help this, or if this just was a >> >>>> bug >> >>>> > with 5.3.... >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Christian Posta >> >>>> > <christian.po...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> The clients should negotiate the correct open-wire (protocol >> version) >> >>>> >> so in theory the broker will be backward compatible with older >> >>>> >> clients. Just make sure the activemq-openwire-legacy jar is on the >> >>>> >> classpath (should be by default). >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Of course I would test this out to make sure :) >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Ned Wolpert < >> >>>> ned.wolp...@imemories.com> >> >>>> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> > Folks- >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > I have a 5.3 installation that we're using, and I have 2 >> >>>> questions for >> >>>> >> it: >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > 1) We have prefetch set to 1 for all of the message consumers on >> one >> >>>> >> queue, >> >>>> >> > where message handling is slow. But it still seems like messages >> >>>> aren't >> >>>> >> > really 'round robin' to the next available message consumer. I'll >> >>>> see a >> >>>> >> few >> >>>> >> > consumers are free but messages are waiting around. Is there a >> >>>> >> > configuration that can help? (I should note that the server has >> >>>> been >> >>>> >> > running consistently for 9 months and it seems to be getting >> >>>> worse.... >> >>>> >> > would a restart help?) >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > 2) We are looking to upgrade to 5.9. I haven't started the >> process >> >>>> of >> >>>> >> > testing, but I wanted to see if this is a case where the 5.3 >> >>>> clients need >> >>>> >> > to be upgraded at the same time as the server, or if the clients >> >>>> can be >> >>>> >> > rolled over a few weeks to 5.9 after the server gets updated? >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > Thanks! >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > -- >> >>>> >> > Virtually, Ned Wolpert >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> -- >> >>>> >> Christian Posta >> >>>> >> http://www.christianposta.com/blog >> >>>> >> twitter: @christianposta >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > -- >> >>>> > Virtually, Ned Wolpert >> >>>> > >> >>>> > "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Virtually, Ned Wolpert >> >>> >> >>> "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Virtually, Ned Wolpert >> >> >> >> "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Virtually, Ned Wolpert >> > >> > "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe >> >> >> >> -- >> http://redhat.com >> http://blog.garytully.com >> > > > > -- > Virtually, Ned Wolpert > > "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe -- http://redhat.com http://blog.garytully.com
