The fact that pending messages > enqueued messages looks suspicious, so my
expectation is that this will turn out to be a bug in the statistics code.
But the information I requested may help us to confirm that.

Tim

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021, 6:23 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> enqueued and dequeued only increase.
>
> The main indicator to check is the pending.
>
> If pending count is increasing, it means that the queue size grow
> infinitely. enqueued is the number of produced messages (not necessary
> still in the queue). So, which value are you referencing ?
> BrowsingMessages can "lock" the messages, blocking the consumers
> (depending the way you do it).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 29/09/2021 09:23, Balamurugan Seenivasan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We notice an issue recently in production where the messages in queue
> size grows disproportionate to the number of messages actually produced.
> > Queue size grows close to 3 million in about 3 days while the actual
> messages produced are way less than the actual queue size.
> >
> > Here is one snapshot of how the queue looks like when actual messages
> produced are only around 60000.
> > 794712 (pending)    8(consumers)    679793(enqueued)    507419(dequeued)
> >
> > We use browseMessages extensively (from around 50 threads) using
> selectors like 'JMSCorrelationID LIKE <data>%'.
> > We notice this issue only with those queues we use browseMessages
> against.
> > Not sure if there is a link to usage of browseMessages.
> >
> > AMQ version: 5.16.3 (windows)
> > Persistence:
> > Yes (Microsoft SQL Server 2019 on Linux (Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS) <X64>,
> mssql-jdbc-9.4)
> > config:
> >                <persistenceAdapter>
> >                          <jdbcPersistenceAdapter
> dataDirectory="activemq-data" dataSource="#mssql-ds"
> lockKeepAlivePeriod="5000">
> >
> <adapter><transact-jdbc-adapter/></adapter>
> >                                  <locker>
> >                                          <lease-database-locker
> lockAcquireSleepInterval="10000"/>
> >                                  </locker>
> >                          </jdbcPersistenceAdapter>
> >                  </persistenceAdapter>
> >
> > Appreciate any help/pointers narrowing down the cause.
> >
>

Reply via email to