On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 06:09 PM, Brandon Pedersen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Gordon Sim<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> This is between two c++ brokers?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> Could you describe the steps you took and
>>> the version you are using?
>>
>> Using version 0.12. The steps I took are:
>> - On both the source and destination broker I run:
>>     qpid-config add exchange topic mytopic --durable
>>     qpid-config add queue myq --durable
>>     qpid-config bind mytopic myq 'topica.*'
>> - On the destination broker I run:
>>     qpid-route -d -s --ack 1 queue add<dest-broker>  <source-broker>
>>  mytopic myq
>> - On the source broker machine I edit the spout script to make
>> messages durable and run:
>>     spout mytopic/topica.hello
>> - On the destination broker I run:
>>     drain myq
>>
>> On the source broker I run qpid-stat and see the results I mentioned
>> previously.
>
> Ok, I see the same now. Its the durable messages that are causing this. If
> you send a transient message then all the messages are acknowledged
> correctly.
>
> I've created a JIRA for that:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3502
>

Awesome! Thank you!

>>> If ack is 1 the msgOut count should track the
>>> msgIn pretty closely. It does so for me and I can see the accepts sent
>>> between the brokers for both push and pull routes.
>>
>> When you say you see the accepts, is that over the wire? Maybe I can
>> check for that, what type of packet am I looking for or what can I put
>> a filter on in wireshark to see if it is sending that?
>
> There is an 0-10 filter for wireshark, not sure what version its available
> from. I was just turning on tracing in the brokers.

Looks like >=1.6
(https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5222) has a
proper filter for it, thanks

-Brandon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]

Reply via email to