I was hoping you'd say that, because if the broker was randomly failing to deliver a couple of messages out of a huge number, that wasn't going to be a lot of fun to track down. So I'm glad you figured it out, for both our sakes.
Tim On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 6:58 PM Lionel van den Berg <lion...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good news, it’s our bug. We have some logic that is automatically cleaning > up inactive consumers, that logic was supposed to be turned off. > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 at 12:39 am, Tim Bain <tbai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The number of producers and the message volume should both be irrelevant. >> Though of course if there's a bug, all bets are off. >> >> On Apr 8, 2018 5:53 AM, "Lionel van den Berg" <lion...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I’m going to try to get someone to try your suggestions at site tomorrow. >> >> Regarding your question, yes, the subscriber is a server that is started >> before the producers and never restarted. Does it matter that there are >> multiple producers to the topic. Also it’s a very low volume topic, there >> is lots of data on other topics on the same connection. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 at 1:43 am, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: >> >> > I'd suggest you use a JMX viewer such as JConsole, and navigate through >> the >> > org.apache.activemq MBeans to find the subscription in question. On the >> > Attributes page under the subscription, you'll see counts for the number >> of >> > messages enqueued and dequeued. >> > >> > If those don't match, it means your messages are not getting delivered >> to >> > the subscriber. (Could they be expiring before they can be consumed?) >> > >> > If they match, but are lower than the number you sent to the topic while >> > the consumer was subscribed, we'll have to dig deeper. >> > >> > Also, I understand from your response that these consumers have been >> > subscribed and connected the entire time the messages were being sent. >> Is >> > that what you're saying? >> > >> > Tim >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Lionel van den Berg <lion...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Non-durable an using the same connection as other topics that are >> still >> > > working. No filters. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 11:03 pm, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Are the topic subscriptions durable or non-durable? If the latter, >> were >> > > the >> > > > clients disconnected at the time the messages in question were sent? >> > > > >> > > > Also, do the subscribers in question use any selectors? >> > > > >> > > > Tim >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 12:26 AM Lionel van den Berg < >> lion...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Another kind of vague one. We have found from our application logs >> at >> > > > site >> > > > > that some messages that we are sending appear to be sent OK on one >> > end >> > > > but >> > > > > are never received by the subscriber. >> > > > > >> > > > > This seems to coincide with topics where the traffic volume is >> low, >> > > does >> > > > > anyone have any pointers on where to look first? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
