Also. You should be using your consumers.
On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 11:35 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > You mean you are sending a PR or you will use null instead of “”? > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 11:11 AM Jan Šmucr <jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> > wrote: > >> Ok, I'll fix it then. My Jira at work will be happy for another Done >> task. 😁 >> >> Jan >> >> Zasláno z Outlooku pro Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> >> ________________________________ >> From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:05:49 PM >> To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Hunting memory leaks >> >> Just for a future reference, this is where the JMS layer protects this >> from happening: >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/064018a3e9a1ba39ddbee0bbddfed3e7fccab89c/artemis-jms-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/jms/client/ActiveMQSession.java#L592-L594 >> >> On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 11:03 AM Clebert Suconic >> <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > This only happened because you used the Core API directly, and passed >> > a "" as the filter String. >> > >> > >> > In the JMS layer, there's a check to replace "" by null and that would >> > leave that out. >> > >> > there's a check to add and remove existing filters from the >> > selectors.. but in your case this is creating a leak of "" strings. >> > >> > >> > >> > You should instead pass in null instead of "" for now. >> > >> > >> > We could add a layer of protection on the client and on the server >> > replacing "" by null both client and server. >> > >> > >> > As for a test... We could add a test under ./tests/leak-tests... >> > counting the number of SimpleStrings with CheckLeak (look at other >> > tests) and then making sure it won't go beyond a certain limit. >> > >> > >> > (Do you want to send the PR yourself?) >> > >> > >> > >> > I'm not going to rush for a fix now as you can just use null instead >> > of "" on your filter string and this leak won't happen (I already >> > tested it). >> > >> > >> > let me know if you want to send the PR.. as I don't want to duplicate >> > your efforts. If you're not fixing it just let me know and I will do >> > it on monday. >> > >> > >> > Thanks for this ! >> > >> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 10:53 AM Jan Šmucr <jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > I'll leave it up to you. If you're busy, I'll have created a PR by >> Monday too. 🙂 And as a bonus, I'll get better acquaintanted with the >> Artemis code. >> > > >> > > Jan >> > > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > Od: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> > > Odesláno: sobota, srpna 12, 2023 4:48:08 odp. >> > > Komu: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> >> > > Předmět: Re: Hunting memory leaks >> > > >> > > The leak is because you are creating a consumer within the same >> > > session over and over: >> > > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/064018a3e9a1ba39ddbee0bbddfed3e7fccab89c/artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/postoffice/impl/PostOfficeImpl.java#L410-L420 >> > > >> > > >> > > Do you want to raise the JIRA for this? I should have a fix by monday. >> > > >> > > >> > > If you keep your consumer open instead of open / close it all the >> > > time this won't happen. But I should have a fix by monday. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:24 PM Clebert Suconic >> > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > I highly recommend you using check-leak.. you would have found >> what's >> > > > leaking already. >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/check-leak/check-leak >> > > > >> > > > java -jar check-leak-0.10.jar remote --pid <PID> --report >> > > > <reportoutput> --sleep 5000 >> > > > >> > > > ( I suggest using 5 seconds for your test) >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I would even write a unit-test for memory-leaks. >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:06 AM Jan Šmucr < >> jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > So I’m getting a bit closer. The leak is in PostOfficeImpl and >> QueueInfo. QueueInfo contains the filterStrings List which appears to >> contain a list of filters used by consumers subscribed to that queue. >> However, for some reason this list is updated in a very strange way. For >> one or two consumers there are no CONSUMER_CREATED and CONSUMER_CLOSED core >> notifications which PostOfficeImpl would receive and update the list >> accordingly (also managing the list from outside of QueueInfo is quite >> weird). >> > > > > From the 3rd consumer the management messages start flowing, and >> here comes the catch: The CONSUMER_CREATED message contains >> _AMQ_FilterString = "" whereas the CONSUMER_CLOSED message contains >> AMQ_FilterString = null. So the filterStrings List keeps filling up by >> empty strings because these don’t get removed based on a null value. >> > > > > >> > > > > Jan >> > > > > >> > > > > From: Jan Šmucr<mailto:jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> >> > > > > Sent: pátek 11. srpna 2023 9:43 >> > > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org> >> > > > > Subject: RE: Hunting memory leaks >> > > > > >> > > > > Hello all. >> > > > > >> > > > > I know it’s not ideal but the broker is doing just fine (except >> for the leak issue of course). >> > > > > >> > > > > I’ve tried upgrading to 2.30.0 and the broker still ends up on >> its knees given enough load and only a little heap. In my testing case I’ve >> limited the heap size to 64 MiB so that I wouldn't have to wait for days >> for things to happen, and also the consumer creation/disposal rate is >> different to the production state. Here’s a very simple code which manages >> to take down the 64 MiB broker in about 10 to 15 minutes on Java 11 and >> recent Windows 10: >> > > > > >> > > > > final String queueName = "clouedi-kestra"; >> > > > > final String filter = ""; >> > > > > final Thread[] threads = new Thread[16]; >> > > > > for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) { >> > > > > threads[i] = new Thread(() -> { >> > > > > try ( >> > > > > ServerLocator locator = >> ActiveMQClient.createServerLocator("tcp://localhost:61616"); >> > > > > ClientSessionFactory sf = >> locator.createSessionFactory(); >> > > > > ClientSession session = sf.createSession(false, >> true); >> > > > > ) { >> > > > > while (!session.isClosed()) { >> > > > > try (ClientConsumer consumer = >> session.createConsumer(SimpleString.toSimpleString(queueName), >> SimpleString.toSimpleString(filter), 0, 0, false)) { >> > > > > consumer.receive(1); >> > > > > } >> > > > > } >> > > > > } catch (Exception e) { >> > > > > throw new RuntimeException(e); >> > > > > } >> > > > > }); >> > > > > threads[i].start(); >> > > > > } >> > > > > for (Thread thread : threads) { >> > > > > thread.join(); >> > > > > } >> > > > > >> > > > > Big thanks for your help! >> > > > > Jan >> > > > > >> > > > > From: Arthur Naseef<mailto:a...@amlinv.com> >> > > > > Sent: čtvrtek 10. srpna 2023 21:11 >> > > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org> >> > > > > Subject: Re: Hunting memory leaks >> > > > > >> > > > > Creating a consumer only to consume 1 message is not ideal - >> there's a lot >> > > > > of overhead and work on the broker side when consumers are >> created. >> > > > > >> > > > > With that said, since the consumer should be getting closed >> properly, that >> > > > > should not cause a leak. >> > > > > >> > > > > So first, I would prioritize the version update. Second, I would >> consider >> > > > > changing the use of consumers so they are longer-lived - >> preferrably only >> > > > > being removed once the application needs to stop consuming. >> > > > > >> > > > > If there is a need to throttle and/or control threading and >> parallel >> > > > > processing of messages, perhaps Camel would be a good fit. >> > > > > >> > > > > Hope this helps. >> > > > > >> > > > > Art >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:44 PM Jan Šmucr < >> jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hello all. Thank you for your insights. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > * I’m using the core Java library. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > * Consumers are being created once per poll but reused if >> there are >> > > > > > multiple inbound files to deal with. I create consumers like >> > > > > > >> > > > > > try (final consumer = createConsumer(session, params)) { >> > > > > > >> > > > > > // ... >> > > > > > } >> > > > > > >> > > > > > so I expect them to be closed automatically. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > * I don’t use JMS, but the core sessions are used one per >> thread. The >> > > > > > number of sessions opened and reported by Artemis doesn’t >> change over time. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > * I cannot reproduce the issue yet. It’s a production >> cluster, so >> > > > > > today I’m going to set up my own playground. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Jan >> > > > > > >> > > > > > From: Justin Bertram<mailto:jbert...@apache.org> >> > > > > > Sent: středa 9. srpna 2023 17:41 >> > > > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org> >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Hunting memory leaks >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I echo Tim's recommendation to use the latest release, but I >> don't mean to >> > > > > > say that will certainly resolve the problem. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I can't say if you're doing anything wrong without more >> information. Can >> > > > > > you answer the following questions? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > - What client library are you using? >> > > > > > - How often are consumers being created? >> > > > > > - Are consumers being closed properly once they are no longer >> needed? >> > > > > > - Are JMS sessions being used concurrently from multiple >> threads? >> > > > > > - Do you have a way to reproduce this that you can provide to >> me? A >> > > > > > reproducer would make diagnosing this issue much simpler. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Entries to the list of filter strings are added when a consumer >> is created >> > > > > > and removed when a consumer is closed so at first glance it >> appears you're >> > > > > > leaking consumers. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Justin >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 7:07 AM Jan Šmucr < >> jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hello. >> > > > > > > I’m using a simple master-slave Artemis 2.26.0 cluster, and >> I’m noticing >> > > > > > > heap usage growing more and more each day no matter the >> throughput. >> > > > > > There’s >> > > > > > > about 670 sessions at the same time opened for producers and >> consumers. >> > > > > > > Consumers are polling queues on regular basis, some once a >> second >> > > > > > (meaning >> > > > > > > 1s timeout), some less often. This is by design and cannot be >> altered. >> > > > > > All >> > > > > > > client resources are being reused as much as possible. >> Usually there’s a >> > > > > > > thread pool and the threads have a session opened, and wait >> for tasks to >> > > > > > be >> > > > > > > available to them. >> > > > > > > It appears to me that the more consumers there is the faster >> the server >> > > > > > > heap depletes. >> > > > > > > Now, I’m not very familiar with leak hunting apps, so all I >> have are tiny >> > > > > > > hints that it may have something to do with filter strings >> not being >> > > > > > reused >> > > > > > > and/or thrown away when not needed any more. I don’t know if >> I can post a >> > > > > > > screenshot here so I uploaded it here: >> https://snipboard.io/LHifUK.jpg >> > > > > > > This is from a heap dump opened in JMC JOverflow plugin. >> > > > > > > Is there something obvious that I’m doing wrong? Do you have >> any clues on >> > > > > > > what is going on here? >> > > > > > > Thank you. >> > > > > > > Jan. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Clebert Suconic >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Clebert Suconic >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Clebert Suconic >> >> >> >> -- >> Clebert Suconic >> > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic
