Also when James is starting up I see this in logs:

2011-09-15 17:45:05  WARN AMQPersistenceAdapter:? - The ReferenceStore
is not valid - recovering ...


I'm guessing that's not a good thing?


On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Zach Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think we're seeing the problem again yet, but I just had to
> restart James and noticed this on shutdown:
>
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO JamesServerApplicationContext:? - Closing
> org.apache.james.container.spring.context.JamesServerApplicationContext@86fe26:
> startup date [Thu Sep 15 12:20:21 UTC 2011]; root of context hierarchy
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO imapserver:? - Dispose IMAP Service
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO imapserver:? - Dispose IMAP Service done
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO pop3server:? - Dispose POP3 Service
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO pop3server:? - Dispose POP3 Service done
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO lmtpserver:? - Dispose LMTP Service
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO lmtpserver:? - Dispose LMTP Service done
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO smtpserver:? - Dispose SMTP Service
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO smtpserver:? - Dispose SMTP Service done
> 2011-09-15 16:48:31  INFO mailspooler:? -
> org.apache.james.mailetcontainer.impl.JamesMailSpooler dispose...
> 2011-09-15 16:48:32  INFO mailspooler:? - Stop
> org.apache.james.mailetcontainer.impl.JamesMailSpooler: dequeuer-2
> 2011-09-15 16:48:32  INFO mailspooler:? - Stop
> org.apache.james.mailetcontainer.impl.JamesMailSpooler: dequeuer-1
> 2011-09-15 16:48:51  INFO SocketNode:94 - Caught java.io.EOFException
> closing conneciton.
>
>
> Is that java.io.EOFException normal and expected? Or is it a sign of
> some problems?
>
> Thanks,
> Zach
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Norman Maurer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Using:
>>
>> # jstack <pid>
>>
>>
>> Please take 3 within on minute ...
>>
>> Bye,
>> Norman
>>
>> 2011/9/15 Zach Cox <[email protected]>:
>>> I had to restart James several times this morning so nothing is
>>> blocked at the moment.
>>>
>>> There is nothing indicated in the log files. Things look normal, and
>>> then they look like this:
>>>
>>> 2011-09-15 01:25:26  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=8443803 Connection
>>> established from x
>>> 2011-09-15 01:25:31  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=8443803 Successfully
>>> spooled mail Mail1316049931087-05b8199e-e01f-4d14-84d5-3d7ac2443bb3
>>> from x on x for [x]
>>> 2011-09-15 01:25:36  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=8443803 Connection closed for x
>>> 2011-09-15 01:25:47  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=11521429 Connection
>>> established from x
>>> 2011-09-15 01:25:48  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=11521429 Successfully
>>> spooled mail Mail1316049948254-abd67e8f-bafe-41ab-8eef-c551420fd56e
>>> from x on x for [x]
>>> 2011-09-15 01:25:48  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=11521429 Connection closed for x
>>> 2011-09-15 01:26:41  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=5675333 Connection
>>> established from x
>>> 2011-09-15 01:26:52  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=5675333 Successfully
>>> spooled mail Mail1316050012621-522b1f2a-2851-46fb-940c-711591f637cc
>>> from x on x for [x]
>>> 2011-09-15 01:26:57  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=5675333 Connection closed for x
>>> 2011-09-15 01:27:52  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=33404412 Connection
>>> established from localhost (127.0.0.1)
>>> 2011-09-15 01:27:52  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=33404412 Connection closed
>>> for localhost (127.0.0.1)
>>> 2011-09-15 01:28:12  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=11673762 Connection
>>> established from x
>>> 2011-09-15 01:28:22  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=11673762 Successfully
>>> spooled mail Mail1316050102393-6fcc21aa-8f32-4935-b0eb-df892d54a5e8
>>> from x on x for [x]
>>> 2011-09-15 01:28:27  INFO smtpserver:? - ID=11673762 Connection closed for x
>>>
>>> So every mail that comes in just gets spooled and not processed.
>>>
>>> When this starts happening again, what's the best way to take a thread
>>> dump from James?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Zach
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Norman Maurer
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> please take a thread-dump to see why its blocked...
>>>>
>>>> Anything in the logs ?
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> Norman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/9/15 Zach Cox <[email protected]>:
>>>>> We upgraded to James 3.0-beta3 on Tuesday night. Things worked fine
>>>>> until around 9pm last night, where exactly the same problem started
>>>>> occurring: mail would get spooled, but not processed.  After
>>>>> restarting James, some of the mail was then processed successfully,
>>>>> but most was lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> We consider this an emergency situation for our company and need to
>>>>> find a resolution ASAP. What kind of information can we provide to
>>>>> help find a resolution? If financial resources need to be involved to
>>>>> find a resolution or move things along, that is an option.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any help is most greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Zach
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Norman Maurer
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> No problems...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you still can replicate then please open a issue with a stack trace
>>>>>> attached..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye,
>>>>>> Norman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/9/13 Raju Buchi <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>> James 3.0-M2. I will try to stand up a new server with beta3 and see if 
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can replicate the issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Raju
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Norman Maurer <
>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you use beta3 ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bye,
>>>>>>>> Norman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2011/9/13 Raju Buchi <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>> > Hello
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > We are also facing exactly the same issues. Tried to debug my custom
>>>>>>>> mailets
>>>>>>>> > and seems to be everything is working fine. Logs did not show any
>>>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>>> > messages except it will always spool a mail and will never attempt to
>>>>>>>> send
>>>>>>>> > it. i.e. all mails are stuck in the spool.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > - Raju
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Zach Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> We are having a severe problem with James 3.0-M2 where it will 
>>>>>>>> >> operate
>>>>>>>> >> correctly for hours or days, and then all of a sudden it will not
>>>>>>>> >> process a lot of the mail it spools.  Sometimes it will not process
>>>>>>>> >> *any* mail that it spools, and other times it will spool a bunch of
>>>>>>>> >> mail, and then process others seemingly at random.  I have to 
>>>>>>>> >> restart
>>>>>>>> >> James to get that spooled mail to be processed.  But even then,
>>>>>>>> >> sometimes the spooled mail is completely lost after a restart.  I 
>>>>>>>> >> have
>>>>>>>> >> seen several other threads lately with similar problems, but they
>>>>>>>> >> haven't helped our situation.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> We do not store mail in James for personal accounts and we have 
>>>>>>>> >> IMAP &
>>>>>>>> >> POP3 disabled.  Every inbound email has one of two things done to 
>>>>>>>> >> it:
>>>>>>>> >>  - it is processed locally by custom mailets & matchers
>>>>>>>> >>  - or it is relayed to our corporate Google Apps account
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> A previous thread recommended checking all custom mailets and
>>>>>>>> >> matchers.  As far as I can tell, they are all working properly.  
>>>>>>>> >> There
>>>>>>>> >> are no exceptions or errors in log/james-server.log, and in the
>>>>>>>> >> scenario where James spools some mail & processes others, the mail
>>>>>>>> >> that is processed is handled properly by our custom mailets &
>>>>>>>> >> matchers.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> I've tried connecting to James JMX remotely via JConsole but have 
>>>>>>>> >> not
>>>>>>>> >> been able to connect.  Which port does James run JMX on?  Any help
>>>>>>>> >> with JMX would be appreciated.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Does anyone have any other ideas about what we should look for?  I
>>>>>>>> >> noticed 3.0-beta3 is out now, were there fixes in beta3 related to
>>>>>>>> >> mail being spooled but not processed?
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> >> Zach
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to