We powered off the VM while the producers were kicking and alive, and no one 
was consuming. Then we tallied for the number of committed messages by the 
producers. After that we restart the VM, and then restart the broker, and take 
the queue stats. Then we use the JMS QueueBrowser API to count the number of 
actual messages in the queues. Finally we consumer all messages from the queues 
and tally them against the number of messages committed by the producers at the 
time the failure was triggered.

We are looking forward to run the tests using a bare metal system in order to 
eliminate VirtualBox VM from the picture.

Thanks,
Anindya Haldar

Oracle Marking Cloud

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Bertram [mailto:jbert...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:58 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Artemis 2.4.0 message loss in durability tests upon system 
power-off

The "messages added" metric for a queue is volatile so when the broker is 
stopped it will be reset.  When the broker is started again the "messages 
added" will be 0.  In your test you say the broker is "powered off" and then 
you "resume" the broker.  What exactly does this mean?  It seems clear that you 
aren't actually shutting down the broker otherwise the "messages added" would 
be 0 when you started your consumers.  Please clarify.

Also, how do the broker's metrics compare with the producer's and consumer's 
metrics?  I assume here that the producer and consumer are both tracking the 
number of messages they produce/consume.

Also, do you have a way to reproduce this without a VM?


Justin

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Anindya Haldar <anindya.hal...@oracle.com>
wrote:

> We are in the process of qualifying Artemis 2.4.0 for our stack. We 
> ran some message durability related tests in the face of a power 
> failure. The broker is running in a VirtualBox VM, and is set up in a 
> system where disk caching is disabled. The VM runs OEL Linux 7, and 
> the VirtualBox Manger itself is running under Windows 7 Enterprise.
>
>
>
> We use JMS API and persistent messaging. The transaction batch size in 
> the producers is 1, and the message size for the tests in 1024 bytes. 
> No consumers are running at this time, and we let the queues build up. 
> Then the VirtualBox VM running the broker is 'powered off' (using 
> VirtualBox
> facilities) 5 minutes along the way. The producers detect the broker's 
> absence and stop.
>
>
>
> Then we resume the VM and the broker. The broker starts up and we get 
> the queue stats from it before anything else:
>
>
>
> |NAME                     |ADDRESS                  |CONSUMER_COUNT
> |MESSAGE_COUNT |MESSAGES_ADDED |DELIVERING_COUNT |MESSAGES_ACKED |
> |testQueue1               |testQueue1               |0
> |106988        |106988         |0                |0              |
> |testQueue2               |testQueue2               |0
> |107077        |107077         |0                |0              |
> |testQueue3               |testQueue3               |0
> |106996        |106996         |0                |0              |
> |testQueue4               |testQueue4               |0
> |107076        |107076         |0                |0              |
>
>
>
> The total message count across the queues is 428137.
>
> Now we start the consumers (no producers this time). Finally when the 
> consumers finish, we get the stats again. The consumers are claiming 
> that they received and acknowledged 428126 messages, which is 
> corroborated by the broker in the MESSAGES_ACKED column.
>
>
>
> |NAME                     |ADDRESS                  |CONSUMER_COUNT
> |MESSAGE_COUNT |MESSAGES_ADDED |DELIVERING_COUNT |MESSAGES_ACKED |
>
> |testQueue1               |testQueue1               |0              |0
>          |106988         |0                |106984         |
>
> |testQueue2               |testQueue2               |0              |0
>          |107077         |0                |107074         |
>
> |testQueue3               |testQueue3               |0              |0
>          |106996         |0                |106992         |
>
> |testQueue4               |testQueue4               |0              |0
>          |107076         |0                |107076         |
>
>
>
> You can clearly see some apparent anomalies:
>
> 1)      Post failure, and upon resumption, the broker said it had 428,137
> messages in the test queues, all combined (column MESSAGES_ADDED).
>
> 2)      When the consumers consumed it got 428,126 messages and
> acknowledged all of them. That is 11 short of 428,137.
>
> 3)      The broker, upon the consumers' completion reported 0 queue depth,
> but also said it got acknowledgements on 428,126 messages (column 
> MESSAGES_ACKED).
>
>
>
> Questions:
>
> 1)      If we assume the 'MESSAGES_ADDED' column is accurate, then what
> happed to additional 11 messages that the consumers never received, 
> and, as a result never acknowledged?
>
> 2)      If, according to the broker, the number of acknowledged messages
> is 11 less than the number of messages added to the queue, why did it 
> declare the queues to be empty when 11 of the messages were not 
> acknowledged?
>
> 3)      If we trust the 'MESSAGES_ADDED' stats as a baseline number then
> the system lost messages. And if we do not trust that statistic then 
> what do we trust, and how do we know if it lost messages?
>
>
>
> The system ran into this issue 3 out of 4 times I ran the VM power 
> failure test (with slightly different statistics, of course). We are 
> very concerned that it is symptom of message loss in the system, and 
> are also concerned about how to explain the anomalies. Will greatly 
> appreciate any pointer that can help us understand and address the underlying 
> issue here.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anindya Haldar
>
> Oracle Marketing Cloud
>
>
>

Reply via email to