Hi Bryan, That's interesting. I wonder where the problem is with ActiveMQ => NMS connection. Without knowing your exact network topology, I can't point to where the problem is. All I can do is speak to my experience and I have been able to keep connections alive for a very long time without errors, both with high- and low-activity, even going over what my infrastructure team has told me is a WAN connection.
Best, Jim On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Bryan Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the info. I suspected that's what the timeout meant, but you > never really know until you ask.. > Anyway, we finally solved our issue. We setup two instances of ActiveMQ in > the two data centers to forward messages back and forth between each other. > This is working much better for us. It seems the ActiveMQ to ActiveMQ > communication is a bit more robust than the ActiveMQ to Apache.NMS > communication (at least when running over a WAN). > > Bryan > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Jim Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Bryan, > > I can't answer all of your questions, yet. But I can answer some of > them, > > anyway. > > > > 1. As far as the ResponseTimeout property goes, that is used for network > > timeouts. It's not a JMS timeout value like TimeToLive. The > > ResponseTimeout is used by the client to wait for a response from the > > broker. Since a network call is inherently a blocking operation (send > > request, wait for response), if we never receive a response from a > > dead/hung > > broker, the client will hang as well. The ResponseTimeout lets client > > abort > > waiting for the response from the broker. This can be set to whatever > > performance constraints your application requires. In a WAN environment, > > this might be set to something fairly high where there is a lot of > latency > > in network round-trips. The socket connection is not dropped. The > client > > simply stops waiting for the broker to respond and goes into its > > error-handling code for a non-response. > > > > 2. I see the marshalling code for the KeepAliveInfo, but like you I don't > > see how this is turned on or controlled from the client-side. This would > > need more investigation to see if it is enabled via a URI parameter, or > if > > new code needs to be written to enable its use. > > > > 3. Can't answer the server-side socket issue. Don't know that code. > > > > >
