Just looked at the code and to my surprise I am not browsing at that queue - while I am at other LVQ. I thought that would not make much of a difference. I'll add the browsing option as soon as I get to the code. Could you kindly explain what effect browsing would have ?
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/01/2013 01:30 PM, Rajesh Khan wrote: > >> I'll be running the same project in an hour. However with different >> capacity sizes as you suggested earlier (the sender C++ will have a >> capacity of 300 and the receiver C# will have a 0 capacity and return >> acknowledgment of messages after every 10 messages). Maybe this might >> help.I am almost 80% sure this was the warning exception that I saw. >> However Ill be certain to note the exception that comes up and post it >> back. Also did you have any thoughts on the memory issue that I just >> mentioned. Why the broker released all the memory only when the C# >> receiver >> reconnected.(I had to disconnect the receiver and reconnect). >> > > My guess is that there were still a lot of unacknowledged messages being > tracked, and closing the receiver allowed the broker to cleanup its records > of those. Browsing or acking more frequently would reduce the number of > deliveries the broker was tracking in this regard. > > Can I ask if there is a reason you are not browsing? (In that case the > queue would always hold the last value for each key; the receiver would > never delete anything from the queue and messages would be removed only > when replaced by an update with the same key). > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected].**org<[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
