Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 55473 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2007 11:12:25 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jul 2007 11:12:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 25180 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2007 11:12:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 25149 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2007 11:12:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 25140 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jul 2007 11:12:26 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:12:26 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:12:21 -0700 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I5gIa-0000pb-DW for users@activemq.apache.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:12:00 -0700 Message-ID: <11410110.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 04:12:00 -0700 (PDT) From: yunusbayraktar To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Urgent - please help MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: yunusbayraktar@gmail.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi James, We have a list of clients and for each client we create a separate queue(some of them are persistent, some of them are not) dynamically. The number of clients can be up to 750. We preferred this way because we assumed that this may be faster than a single queue with Message Selector pattern. We are satisfied with the process time but the memory consumption is constantly increasing even though we use TTL(=5 sec) for our messages when there is no consumer. As soon as the consumers are at work the memory consumtion starts to fall down. We concluded that if there is no consumer for an expired message, it is not removed from the memory. I read that this was one of the fixes in Snaphot-5.0. Thanks, Yunus -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Urgent---please-help-tf4017651s2354.html#a11410110 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.