What are the use cases for pn_transport_unbind?

2013-04-04 Thread Keith W
I'm curious to understand the use-cases for the pn_transport_unbind API method. I understand that one such use case is failover. When a client discovers that it has lost connectivity to the server, the client calls pn_transport_unbind to unbind the connection from the old transport, establish a

[jira] [Created] (PROTON-285) MessengerTest#testSendBogus fails against proton-c

2013-04-04 Thread Keith Wall (JIRA)
Keith Wall created PROTON-285: - Summary: MessengerTest#testSendBogus fails against proton-c Key: PROTON-285 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-285 Project: Qpid Proton Issue Type:

[jira] [Commented] (PROTON-284) Add JUnit tests for Engine Connection

2013-04-04 Thread Philip Harvey (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-284?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13622031#comment-13622031 ] Philip Harvey commented on PROTON-284: -- Committed first cut of these changes in

[jira] [Commented] (PROTON-285) MessengerTest#testSendBogus fails against proton-c

2013-04-04 Thread Keith Wall (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-285?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13622044#comment-13622044 ] Keith Wall commented on PROTON-285: --- Temporarily removed failing test (rev. 1464442) to

Valgrind based soak tests fail against earlier versions of valgrind (3.2.1)

2013-04-04 Thread Keith W
Hello We are seeing a the valgrind based soak tests fail on boxes with earlier versions of valgrind (3.2.1). proton_tests.soak.MessengerTests.test_star_topology_valgrind ...location should start with fun: or obj:

Re: Valgrind based soak tests fail against earlier versions of valgrind (3.2.1)

2013-04-04 Thread Ken Giusti
Hi Keith, Ah, so sorry - I'll take a look. My first instinct is to simply disable the valgrind tests for older versions, but let me check if I can fix the suppression in some backward compatible way. /me valgrind noob. - Original Message - From: Keith W keith.w...@gmail.com To:

Re: Valgrind based soak tests fail against earlier versions of valgrind (3.2.1)

2013-04-04 Thread Ken Giusti
Hi Keith, This patch: http://pastebin.com/bSGjm0nN *should* get valgrind working for older versions. Can you try it against your 3.2.1 valgrind and let me know (my version of valgrind is 3.5). If running the above patch fails to suppress any errors on your system, it will prompt you to

RE: Acknowledgement for messages sent using Proton-C

2013-04-04 Thread Arun Dsouza
Thanks Rafael! I'll give it a try. -Original Message- From: Rafael Schloming [mailto:r...@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:15 AM To: proton@qpid.apache.org Cc: David Ingham; Affan Dar; Xin Chen Subject: Re: Acknowledgement for messages sent using Proton-C Hi, sorry for the

problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Michael Goulish
Is this a bug, or am I Doing Something Wrong ? Scenario { My sender sends a single message, and hopes to see that the receiver has accepted it. I launch 3 copies of the sender very close together-- they all talk to the same address. My receiver receives in a loop, accepts

Re: problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Ted Ross
Any clues from a trace of the receiver? $ PN_TRACE_FRM=1 ./receiver -Ted On 04/04/2013 02:09 PM, Michael Goulish wrote: Is this a bug, or am I Doing Something Wrong ? Scenario { My sender sends a single message, and hopes to see that the receiver has accepted it. I

Re: problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Michael Goulish
OK, I'm looking at trace from receiver, and I thought I would post it here so I can't be accused of hogging all the fun for myself. ( Remember, three senders all send to same receiver address, only two get 'accepted' replies. Last sender ends up hanging in send(), while receiver (in

Re: problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Ted Ross
Looks like all three credits were given to the first link. Once one message arrived, its credit was given to the second link. The second link then transferred a message but the credit was given back to the second link where there were no more messages to transfer. On 04/04/2013 03:06 PM,

Re: problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Rafael Schloming
I think this is the same bug we've seen before with passing fixed (positive) credit limits to recv. The implementation isn't smart enough to pay attention to who actually is offering messages when it allocates credit, and so it ends up giving out all of its credit to a sender that has no use for

Re: problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Michael Goulish
Yes! -1 did it. Thanks! - Original Message - I think this is the same bug we've seen before with passing fixed (positive) credit limits to recv. The implementation isn't smart enough to pay attention to who actually is offering messages when it allocates credit, and so it ends up

Re: problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Ken Giusti
FWIW: there's a JIRA that's tracking this: - Original Message - From: Michael Goulish mgoul...@redhat.com To: proton@qpid.apache.org Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:45:03 PM Subject: Re: problem with multiple senders Yes! -1 did it. Thanks! - Original Message -

Re: problem with multiple senders

2013-04-04 Thread Ken Giusti
Dang - hit send too soon: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-200 It depends on having the ability to revoke issued credit, which is still outstanding AFAIK. - Original Message - From: Ken Giusti kgiu...@redhat.com To: proton@qpid.apache.org Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013