Thanks again for your help. On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> wrote:
> Yeah, i think that's about right. > > Regards > -- > Dejan Bosanac > Senior Software Engineer | FuseSource Corp. > dej...@fusesource.com | fusesource.com > skype: dejan.bosanac | twitter: @dejanb > blog: http://www.nighttale.net > ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Gaurav Sharma > <gaurav.cs.sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dejan - thanks for the detailed explanation. Based on this, I went back > and > > figured the folly.. I misread the maximumActive to mean the connection > > limit rather than the session-count per connection. My bad. I am upping > the > > maxConnections now. Also, based on your tweaks in 5.7 (thanks for the > > excellent blog post), for v5.6 users like me, to simulate the same 1000 > > connections (thread-pool upper-bound) per client, I can come up with one > of > > the combinations on the pooled conexn factory like: > > maxActive(2) X maximumConnections(500) > > maxActive(4) X maximumConnections(250) > > > > That will keep the upper bound to a 1000 threads in the pool with the > > assumption that there's just a single user of the factory and thus the > size > > of LinkedList<ConnectionPool> never goes beyond 1000, right? > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> the pooled connection factory will try to create maxConnections > >> (default 1) and then reuse them from the pool. The process of > >> connections creating (failover and randomize) is not related to the > >> pool at all. With failover in case, the client (and the pool) will not > >> even see host1 connection problem as transport itself will reconnect > >> to host2. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> -- > >> Dejan Bosanac > >> Senior Software Engineer | FuseSource Corp. > >> dej...@fusesource.com | fusesource.com > >> skype: dejan.bosanac | twitter: @dejanb > >> blog: http://www.nighttale.net > >> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Gaurav Sharma > >> <gaurav.cs.sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > It seems like with a failover transport configuration > >> > (failover:(nio:host1:port1,nio:host2:port2)?randomize=false) and a > >> > PooledConnectionFactory, the client-side still tries to create a new > >> > connection per thread instead of fetching from the pool of > connections. > >> > With 'randomize' flag turned off, I would think that the pool can keep > >> > connections to the primary broker node, no? Then, if host1 goes down, > >> drain > >> > the pool and fill it up with host2 connections upto the maxActive > limit. > >> Is > >> > that how it is supposed to work or am I expecting too much > intelligence > >> in > >> > the pooled conexn factory? > >> > > >> > -gaurav > >> >
