[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2012: ARTEMIS-1803 - Pass ServerConsumer to messageE...

[cshannon]

Github user cshannon commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2012
  
@franz1981  and @michaelandrepearce  - thanks for taking a look


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2012: ARTEMIS-1803 - Pass ServerConsumer to messageE...

[franz1981]

Github user franz1981 commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2012
  
@michaelandrepearce @cshannon my sider-sense doesn't feel dangers anymore :


---

Re: Fork Join Pool on the broker

[Michael André Pearce]

+1 to investigate this for sure.

I’ve seen and attended a few of the same Akka presentations. 

The main bit is for it to be able to split the work and execute in parallel 
when possible (divide and conquer) so if the work/code isn’t splittable into 
smaller units of concurrent work then not going to see much benefit, atm I 
think our code probably needs a bit of tlc, to make best use of it.

Probably best to think what on our hot path is divide-able to be more parallel 
in the way it could run. 

I’m thinking deserialisation of buffers to packets, post office delivery to 
queues.

The bits I could think of most is the actor model recently. 

Cheers
Mike 






Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 12:36, nigro_franz  wrote:
> 
> HI guys!!!
> 
> after a couple of talks I've seen about Akka and the (seems good)
> ForkJoinPool experience and a tons of metrics i have collected on Artemis
> related to the current implementation used, I'm starting to believe that the
> broker could benefit a lot by using a ForkJoinPool.
> 
> The current implementation is limiting by far the scaling capabilities of
> the broker, but I haven't had any experiences yet with FJ pool to know which
> impact it should have on the code: did you have any? what do you think about
> that?
> Any experience, idea on how to apply it and feedback would be
> super-appreciated :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Franz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2012: ARTEMIS-1803 - Pass ServerConsumer to messageE...

[michaelandrepearce]

Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2012
  
@franz1981, any comment?


---

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2010: ARTEMIS-1801 removing null-unchecked de...

[clebertsuconic]

Github user clebertsuconic commented on a diff in the pull request:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2010#discussion_r181386656
  
--- Diff: 
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/server/impl/QueueImpl.java
 ---
@@ -2712,6 +2713,11 @@ private Message makeCopy(final MessageReference ref, 
final boolean expiry) throw
private Message makeCopy(final MessageReference ref,
 final boolean expiry,
 final boolean copyOriginalHeaders) throws 
Exception {
+  if (ref == null) {
+ ActiveMQServerLogger.LOGGER.nullRefMessage();
+ throw new ActiveMQNullRefException("Reference to message is 
null");
--- End diff --

Was this an accident? WEren't you supposed to use NULL_REF.createException 
here?


---

Fork Join Pool on the broker

[nigro_franz]

HI guys!!!

after a couple of talks I've seen about Akka and the (seems good)
ForkJoinPool experience and a tons of metrics i have collected on Artemis
related to the current implementation used, I'm starting to believe that the
broker could benefit a lot by using a ForkJoinPool.

The current implementation is limiting by far the scaling capabilities of
the broker, but I haven't had any experiences yet with FJ pool to know which
impact it should have on the code: did you have any? what do you think about
that?
Any experience, idea on how to apply it and feedback would be
super-appreciated :)

Cheers,
Franz





--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2013: ARTEMIS-1805 fix for broker operations ...

[stanlyDoge]

GitHub user stanlyDoge opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2013

ARTEMIS-1805 fix for broker operations in hawtio

There are two operations, which causes an error while selected in hawtio 
console under broker/operations. Adding @Operation annotation to these methods 
fixes an error, but methods are exposed and I am not 100% sure that is correct. 
I also unified capitalized first letter of methods description.

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/stanlyDoge/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-1805

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2013.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #2013


commit 59f91f4c2e79777e40e5b220c0fad8faf63437e5
Author: Stanislav Knot 
Date:   2018-04-13T09:20:20Z

ARTEMIS-1805 fix for broker operations in hawtio




---