Hi Sean,
Prioritization was layered on top of the existing activeMQ storage
solutions, so the ability to optimize was somewhat limited.
thanks,
Rob
On 8 November 2012 01:26, sdonovan_uk sdonovan...@yahoo.com wrote:
What is the expectation for queue size and performance when using
yay!
On 7 November 2012 22:57, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
The activemq-broker module should be super lean an mean and mean now. No
spring dependencies needed anymore. Embedders rejoice!
--
**
*Hiram Chirino*
*Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
*hchir...@redhat.com
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
The activemq-broker module should be super lean an mean and mean now. No
spring dependencies needed anymore. Embedders rejoice!
Ah fantastic. Looks great for AMQ 5.8 onwards, for end users to slice
and dice their
Hey All,
I am bit confused to choose the technology. Can someone please help me in
this regard which one and why?
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/CMS-vs-NMS-vs-JMS-tp4659004.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
There are two angles to this, with a large cache and without.
In essence priority is implemented on read, so essentially reordering
before dispatch. without a cache (with a large message backlog) this
means multiple seeks.
Throwing memory at the broker will help, the larger the message cache
the
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 23:56 -0800, shahzad wrote:
Hey All,
I am bit confused to choose the technology. Can someone please help me in
this regard which one and why?
Each targets a different development platform, JMS = Java, CMS = C++ and
NMS = .NET
--
View this message in context:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
importantly very
+1
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 09:02 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
it's
I'm about to start breaking out new modules from activemq-optional. So,
hold off on changing it for a bit unless you want to deal with tricky
commit conflicts.
--
**
*Hiram Chirino*
*Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
*hchir...@redhat.com hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com*
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493198#comment-13493198
]
Helen Huang commented on AMQCPP-405:
Hi Timothy,
I created a test tool and did some
I agree, it has not had much love over the past few releases and the
implementation over a single channel will never scale, + there is the
recovery problem.
The theory is great though, no infrastructure required. We can maybe
revisit this feature with a replicated memory store at some stage.
+1
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-web-demo/changes
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$apache-activemq/changes
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-rar/56/
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-camel/56/changes
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-console/56/
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-core/changes
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-ra/56/
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-spring/56/changes
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-leveldb-store/56/changes
See
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/org.apache.activemq$activemq-optional/56/
See https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Java7/changes
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-1853?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493225#comment-13493225
]
Gary Tully commented on AMQ-1853:
-
the url query, b/c it is a connection factory attribute
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Helen Huang updated AMQCPP-405:
---
Attachment:
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 17:23 -0800, sdonovan_uk wrote:
Active MQ V5.7.0
C++/CMS V3.4.5
I am using a queue
We have written a C++ consumer, using CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
When receiving messages, if the prefetch value is either 1 or 2 -- you get
the exception Could not correlate acknowledge
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493318#comment-13493318
]
Helen Huang commented on AMQCPP-405:
To use CMS_Test_Tool, please unzip it into a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493324#comment-13493324
]
Kyle Miller commented on AMQ-4122:
--
We are seeing a similar issue. After debugging, I've
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493325#comment-13493325
]
Helen Huang commented on AMQCPP-405:
Hi Timothy,
Since we are very close to our
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493329#comment-13493329
]
Justin Field commented on AMQ-4122:
---
I was never able to resolve the issue so i mad the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493329#comment-13493329
]
Justin Field edited comment on AMQ-4122 at 11/8/12 5:41 PM:
I
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kyle Miller updated AMQ-4122:
-
Attachment: activemq-kyle.xml
Lease Database Locker failover broken
Ok done breaking out the activemq-option module.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.comwrote:
I'm about to start breaking out new modules from activemq-optional. So,
hold off on changing it for a bit unless you want to deal with tricky
commit conflicts.
--
+1
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Gary Tully gary.tu...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, it has not had much love over the past few releases and the
implementation over a single channel will never scale, + there is the
recovery problem.
The theory is great though, no infrastructure required. We
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493329#comment-13493329
]
Justin Field edited comment on AMQ-4122 at 11/8/12 6:45 PM:
I
First, many thanks for replying.
I've just tried AMQCPP v3.5.0 SNAPSHOT -- and the problem still happens. It
isn't fixed.
Suggestions?
Sean
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/AMQ-2489-not-fixed-acknowledgement-problem-tp4658990p4659054.html
Sent from the
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 09:28 -0800, sdonovan_uk wrote:
First, many thanks for replying.
I've just tried AMQCPP v3.5.0 SNAPSHOT -- and the problem still happens. It
isn't fixed.
Suggestions?
Create a unit test and open a jira for the problem.
Sean
--
View this message in
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493497#comment-13493497
]
Timothy Bish commented on AMQCPP-405:
-
Not really sure when I'll have time to navigate
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493505#comment-13493505
]
Helen Huang commented on AMQCPP-405:
Hi Timothy,
It would not take long to set up the
See https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ/1128/changes
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493533#comment-13493533
]
Kyle Miller commented on AMQ-4122:
--
I looked at things a bit closer and realized that there
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4160?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493537#comment-13493537
]
Timothy Bish commented on AMQ-4160:
---
Once you provide the updated patch we'll get this
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4159?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493576#comment-13493576
]
Stirling Chow commented on AMQ-4159:
I will look into this. We run a local AMQ build on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13493585#comment-13493585
]
Timothy Bish commented on AMQCPP-405:
-
Step 3 fails, the custom amqcpp project doesn't
The vote passes with 8 +1s. I'll release the binaries shortly. Thanks to
all who voted.
--
**
*Hiram Chirino*
*Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
*hchir...@redhat.com hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com*
*skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirinohttp://twitter.com/hiramchirino
+1
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Hiram Chirino hi...@hiramchirino.com wrote:
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due
45 matches
Mail list logo
