Hi Kal, If your issue was being caused by a slow slave, I've introduced a change to handle aggregating together replication events on the master side so that the master's memory does not get impacted by slow slaves. The change was in this commit: https://github.com/apache/activemq/commit/4367ec1b829f46da60bd592a671ea1ebc8aedcd7
And it's available in this build, incase you want to test: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/5.10-SNAPSHOT/apache-activemq-5.10-20131106.134045-17-bin.tar.gz On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16 AM, kal123 <kpfininf...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have 2 slaves and 1 master running and using persistent messges. The > master's memory usage is going high. > The following are the objects i see building up: > byte: 2.77G > LinkedList:235MB (9.8 mil instances) > org.apache.activemq.leveldb.replicated.FileTransferFrame:78.7M (2.45 mil. > instances) > ..ReplicationFrame:59.7M (2.49 mil instances) > > Could the number of FileTransferFrame indicate that its waiting to sync to > slaves, issue with slaves? > > Why would slave be not getting synced fast enough.. or very slow to sync? > we see same issue when quorum_disk is used as well? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Replicated-LevelDB-Store-filling-up-memory-tp4672485p4672941.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
