From users-return-13607-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org Wed Apr 16 20:26:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 24214 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2008 20:26:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2008 20:26:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 77900 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2008 20:26:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 77881 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2008 20:26:24 -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 77872 invoked by uid 99); 16 Apr 2008 20:26:24 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:26:24 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.32.180.16] (HELO outbound1-va3-R.bigfish.com) (216.32.180.16) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:25:37 +0000 Received: from outbound1-va3.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by outbound1-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9049811489F3 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail64-va3-R.bigfish.com (si1-va3 [10.7.14.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound1-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854B91980067 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail64-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail64-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E04E190638 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:47 +0000 (UTC) X-BigFish: VP X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: OrigIP: 163.181.251.22;Service: EHS Received: by mail64-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1208377307395165_19749; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:47 +0000 (UCT) Received: from ausb3extmailp02.amd.com (ausb3extmailp02.amd.com [163.181.251.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail64-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303EBDA8091 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ausb3twp01.amd.com ([163.181.250.37]) by ausb3extmailp02.amd.com (Switch-3.2.7/Switch-3.2.7) with ESMTP id m3GKQYx1022295 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:26:37 -0500 X-WSS-ID: 0JZFPVU-01-6WW-01 Received: from sausexbh2.amd.com (SAUSEXBH2.amd.com [163.181.22.102]) by ausb3twp01.amd.com (Tumbleweed MailGate 3.5.1) with ESMTP id 28FD1194ABD for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:21:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sausexmb4.amd.com ([163.181.3.15]) by sausexbh2.amd.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:21:41 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Message loss in Network of Brokers with Duplex Connections Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:21:39 -0500 Message-ID: <9BE2C68A2D8EAA40817649AC565B037CEDC95B@sausexmb4.amd.com> In-Reply-To: <76FDF32F-B4EA-476E-8FE0-945D6FA3F264@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Message loss in Network of Brokers with Duplex Connections Thread-Index: Acif6FdTayllKGvETg+eT2hwkdZhVwAFP5/w References: <9BE2C68A2D8EAA40817649AC565B037CEDC7EE@sausexmb4.amd.com> <76FDF32F-B4EA-476E-8FE0-945D6FA3F264@gmail.com> From: "Cleveland, Seth" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2008 20:21:41.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B52A5F0:01C89FFF] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Let's assume networkTTL=3D1 solves my original problem. Extending the problem statement to better represent my use-case. 4 brokers (A, B, C, and D) with connections and producers/consumers as follows: A -> B A -> C D -> B D -> C Duplex =3D true networkTTL =3D 5 Is set for all connections. A: q1 producer, q2 producer B: q1 producer, q2 consumer C: q1 producer, q2 consumer D: q1 consumer Different combinations of dynamicOnly and conduitSubscriptions haven't helped. I observe a lot of lost messages. I'm not sure if this is related, however, when I look at the number of consumers on q1 in Jconsole on any of the brokers, it says there are 3 total consumers.=20 Is this configuration expected to work? If so, what am I missing? Thanks, Seth -----Original Message----- From: Rob Davies [mailto:rajdavies@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:35 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Message loss in Network of Brokers with Duplex Connections On 16 Apr 2008, at 18:23, Cleveland, Seth wrote: > With version activemq (FUSE Message Broker - Version 5.0.0.9) I see =20 > data > loss with network of brokers and duplex connections. > > > > I have a brokers running on three machines A, B, and C. The brokers =20 > are > connected as follows, A -> B and A -> C. In addition, duplex is =20 > true on > both connections. I have a producer for a queue on machine A and > consumers for that queue on both B and C. When I send a few hundred > messages through the producer, I find that some percentage (roughly > 10-20%) of the messages are consumed by the consumers on B or C. And > the rest have disappeared. > > > > Looking at the queues in Jconsole, it appears the lost messages bounce > between B and C through the duplex connections until the networkTTL =20 > goes > to zero on the message. > > > > I have tried a combination of dynamicOnly and conduitSubscriptions > without success. > > > > Is this kind of configuration expected to work in activemq? > > If so, what's the right way to configure this? > > > > Thanks, > > Seth > > > Yes this should work - though it seems that the networkTTL should be 1 =20 for this configuration ? cheers, Rob http://open.iona.com/ -Enterprise Open Integration http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/