Could you explain this scenario further? Are there multiple activemq managed connections to different brokers but associated with the same connection handle? Or one managed connection associated with more than one “physical” connection? I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling would result in all connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one transaction.
Thanks David Jencks Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher <exabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It was 5.15.9 that was causing problems with the failover transport (Which > is a best practice to use). Essentially you memory leak when two or more > physical activemq connections get involved in an XA transaction > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:55 AM Jonathan Gallimore < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might mean >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan (Fisher) >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him. >> >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community can >> decide what to do. >> >> Jon >> >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard < >> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jonathan, >>> >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10 >>> >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient >>> jackson-databind dependency. >>> >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated >>> yet :) >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >>> >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher: >>> >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We were >>> >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on TLS >>> >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the >>> >>> problem. >>> >>> >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the >>> >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < >>> >>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar. >>> >>> New snapshot deployed. >>> >>> >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the >>> >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro >>> >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >>> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >>> >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing! >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <exabr...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >>> >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not. >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < >>> >>> exabr...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no >>> >>> issues >>> >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which >>> >>> affects >>> >>> all versions of TomEE). >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue >>> >>> now >>> >>> because >>> >>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be >>> >>> transactional >>> >>> >>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < >>> >>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the >>> >>> fix >>> >>> in >>> >>> before rolling. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro >>> >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >>> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >>> >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its >>> >>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have >>> >>> seen >>> >>> some >>> >>> fixes. >>> >>> >>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off >>> >>> some >>> >>> releases >>> >>> and votes? >>> >>> >>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - >>> >>> that >>> >>> needs >>> >>> some more reviewers and votes. >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com >>> >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it >>> >>> as >>> >>> half >>> >>> full. >>> >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it >>> >>> needs >>> >>> to >>> >>> be. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com >>> >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as >>> >>> half >>> >>> full. >>> >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs >>> >>> to >>> >>> be. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc. >>> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics >>> >>> >>> >>> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences >>> Max-Planck-Str. 39 >>> D-74081 Heilbronn >>> phone: +49 7131 504 6791 >>> mail: richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/ >>> >> > > -- > Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half > full. > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to > be.
