Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gary.tully@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4zWrKppVmPFCJd+NEqOD7f--B=ytBPYMUWNAeE2P26jE56vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAA4zWrKppVmPFCJd+NEqOD7f--B=ytBPYMUWNAeE2P26jE56vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:43:34 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAH+vQmPzEMB0mXwyPWK07vgVjK3eqXPLBDC_4WCxh44HmvADTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Warnings in broker log
From: Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

it may be as simple as giving your brokers unique names or adding a
unique name attribute to the netwok connector.

On 20 September 2012 15:39, Robin K=E5veland Hansen <rkh@knowit.no> wrote:
> My project has been using activemq as the central part of our
> integration platform for a while now. Recently we have made a few
> changes to our broker setup, hoping to improve throughput and efficiency
> in the broker. We also noticed some problems on our brokers that we
> thought could be related to concurrency, so we decided to go with the
> nio transport and -Dorg.apache.activemq.UseDedicatedTaskRunner=3Dfalse in
> the hopes of reducing the amount of threads in the broker. We then put
> our broker into our test environment and let it run for a few weeks.
>
> Our current setup seems to be more stable than the one we had previously
> (which pretty much left everything at the defaults), except for a few
> recurring log messages. At this point I have given up trying to decipher
> whether they are serious situations or just something I should
> disregard, so I had hoped for some help deciding what to do with them.
>
> We are running activemq-5.6.0. The tracebacks and our broker setup file
> can be found here:
> https://gist.github.com/3748262
>
> We are running a total of 4 brokers, which are in pairwise networks of
> brokers, such that host1 is paired with host 9 and host 2 is paired with
> host 10. Most of the consumers and producers run on host 1 or host 2 and
> connect to tcp://localhost:30500.
>
> My question is basically what these warnings mean. They did not appear
> before we started using the nio transport, so we know we can make them
> disappear again. We would however like to keep our current setup if this
> is just aggressive logging. Does anyone know?
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Robin K=E5veland Hansen


--=20
http://fusesource.com
http://blog.garytully.com