FYI. Removed old release candidate from nexus and svn, and put a warning message on the release notes page. A lot of people seems to be thinking it's released.
Cheers -- Dejan Bosanac Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ Blog - http://www.nighttale.net On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thats the problem - persistent Queue with no subscribers shouldn't block > until store limit is reached - this is why flow control has been disabled by > default now > > On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:29, Colin MacNaughton wrote: > > Hi Rob, >> >> I didn't run such a test, but I'd expect that the queue would pretty >> quickly >> fill up and block the senders using the config snippet below since it >> limits >> the queue size to 1Mb. >> >> Colin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rob Davies [mailto:rajdav...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:25 PM >> To: dev@activemq.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ 5.3.0 >> releases >> >> Hey Colin - what results do you see with flow control on and no >> consumers for persistent queues ? >> >> On 21 Sep 2009, at 21:01, Colin MacNaughton wrote: >> >> So ran into 2 issues running performance tests: >>> >>> 1. I ended up tweaking the default config to limit destination sizes >>> and >>> enable flow control as follows: >>> >>> <destinationPolicy> >>> <policyMap> >>> <policyEntries> >>> <policyEntry topic=">" producerFlowControl="true" >>> memoryLimit="1mb"> >>> >>> <pendingSubscriberPolicy> >>> <vmCursor/> >>> </pendingSubscriberPolicy> >>> </policyEntry> >>> <policyEntry queue=">" producerFlowControl="true" >>> memoryLimit="1mb"/> >>> </policyEntries> >>> </policyMap> >>> </destinationPolicy> >>> >>> The current default config was resulting in really high latencies in >>> non >>> persistent pub sub tests (> 2 minutes!). With the new settings >>> throughput >>> doubled and average latency dropped to 3 seconds. >>> >>> However, it seems like there is some resistance to enabling flow >>> control by >>> default: http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2318, as naïve >>> users >>> might erroneously interpret this as a hang. >>> >>> So there is a tradeoff here against guarding again naïve users and >>> good out >>> of box performance benchmarking. >>> >>> A possible compromise appropriate for the 5.3.0 release time frame >>> would be >>> to log a warning the first time flow control is triggered for a >>> destination, >>> to assist naive users in troubleshooting producer pauses. >>> >>> More long term, it might be worth introucing a more sophisticated >>> mechanism >>> for when we page to disk like only do so when there are no consumers >>> connected. A policy similar to this is already being pursued in the >>> amq 6.0 >>> prototype. >>> >>> I logged this as http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2400 >>> >>> 2. Fan-in to dups_ok queue receivers: >>> While running performance tests I I was seeing hangs in several tests >>> involving dups ok queue receivers. My suspicion is that this is >>> related to >>> "too lazy" dups_ok acknowledgements. Changing the queue >>> prefetchLimit to 100 >>> caused this problem to go away. This needs more investigation, but >>> it seems >>> like we can get ourselves in to trouble if the queue size is smaller >>> than >>> the receiver's prefetchLimit, and this should be avoid. It is also >>> possible >>> that there is something more complicated happening in my tests. I >>> haven't >>> yet been able to reproduce this outside my performance test >>> environment. >>> >>> Logged as http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2401 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Colin MacNaughton [mailto:colin.macnaugh...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:49 PM >>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org >>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ >>> 5.3.0 >>> releases >>> >>> Hey Dejan, >>> >>> FYI, I'm running the RC though the Progress internal performance >>> test suite >>> over the weekend. Will advise of the results, but it should be >>> interesting >>> to see how the new default config performs, and we can see if we >>> need to >>> tweak it. >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: chubr...@gmail.com [mailto:chubr...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >>> Dejan >>> Bosanac >>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:14 AM >>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ >>> 5.3.0 >>> releases >>> >>> Ok, I'll modify tomorrow how we create source release and include >>> protobuf >>> code in it. I guess I'll need to tweak assembly-plugin and >>> apache-source-release-assembly-descriptor, but have to research it >>> more on >>> how to do it. If anybody has any experience with this and would >>> provide any >>> pointers it would be very helpful. >>> >>> Cheers >>> -- >>> Dejan Bosanac >>> >>> Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ >>> ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >>> Blog - http://www.nighttale.net >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Hiram Chirino <chir...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah that that does not have the source tar ball for the protobuf >>>> release. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Bruce Snyder >>>> <bruce.sny...@gmail.com >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Hiram Chirino <chir...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Could you also post links to the source tarballs? Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> He already did: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/activemq-staging-030/org/ >> >>> apache/activemq/activemq-parent/5.3.0/ >>> >>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> -- >>>>> perl -e 'print >>>>> unpack("u30","D0G)u8...@4vyy9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" >>>>> );' >>>>> >>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ >>>>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/ >>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Hiram >>>> >>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com >>>> >>>> Open Source SOA >>>> http://fusesource.com/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> Rob Davies >> http://twitter.com/rajdavies >> I work here: http://fusesource.com >> My Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/ >> I'm writing this: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Rob Davies > http://twitter.com/rajdavies > I work here: http://fusesource.com > My Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/ > I'm writing this: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > > > > > >
