consumer.receive(poll timeout in milli) On 15 November 2013 16:28, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolp...@imemories.com> wrote: > With prefetch=0, the client polls the server then, right? Is polling > frequency a settable value? (Though as I write this, I'm assuming if so, > it would be set on the client-side.) > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Virtually, Ned Wolpert > > "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe
-- http://redhat.com http://blog.garytully.com
