Sorry, I quoted you as saying "unresponsive" but your actual word was "hung."
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 7:13 AM Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > 1GB sounds a little small for that volume, especially if there is any > danger of some consumers of durable topics being offline for a while, or of > all consumers on a given queue being offline. Either way, you've proven > that 1GB isn't enough, by hitting an OOM. The fact that you haven't hit it > till now probably means you could get away with using 2GB, but if your host > has the memory available, I'm never going to argue against using it. > > In your test environment, I'm confused about how you can limit the JVM to > 4GB of heap, and then have it take 5GB. Unless the 5GB number is total > memory as measured by something like top? If so, that just means that the > JVM made the heap 4GB, but it doesn't mean that there's actually 4GB of > data in it. Too can't tell you that, so you'd want to use JConsole or > JVisualVM to get an understanding of how much heap is actually used and how > much time is being spent GCing. > > Also, can you more clearly describe what you mean by "unresponsive"? > > Tim > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 12:22 AM Lionel van den Berg <lion...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We're still investigating, turning up logging etc. but we've come across >> two issues: >> >> 1. At our site deployment with default memory usage (1gb) AMQ threw an >> out of memory exception. We couldn't determine exactly why, whether it was >> cumulative memory use of a peak memory use. We have around 50 connections >> and perhaps a few thousand topics with quite a lot of data, perhaps >> 4GB/hour going in and 15 x that much going out. >> >> 2. In our lab we increased memory available to 4Gb by modifying env (see >> attached) and turn up logging (also see attached), within about 5 hours AMQ >> had reach 5Gb and hung without an exception. Unfortunately the system >> wasn't being monitored and apparently the logs weren't any good because >> they'd rolled over too many times. >> >> I realise the information is a little vague at this stage so I'm only >> looking for pointers on where to look. >> >
