Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gary.tully@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMH6+az56e_QqHBdTYByHXOefMOE5+yghzYW_uiTUj2qmBxRtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMH6+azZYhT93XrY+eqH-L5B065LOWf=Z26LEisL65j_02G-xA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKS7T5MY22vqB11rLSb6JLvwOfW4R2wE8HM0wFdLmksXjGHuRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMH6+azsejiNB8zadd5_VYo0U_9Y-42Uyg+7YC6To7zt+k5Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH+vQmN2dfi+cGMynZgH7fa1KeeGE=x0HLObxvShyL5K=A9zbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMH6+az56e_QqHBdTYByHXOefMOE5+yghzYW_uiTUj2qmBxRtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:32:47 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAH+vQmOtiR2da0+LUd8Qu_xSmWjezVc9HB6gqfee6LehH9d6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ignoring subscriptions to excluded destinations
From: Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

in your case you need to provide a destinationFilter b/c it is only
auto built from <dynamicalyIncludedDestinations> not excluded
destinations.

Do you know up front what you want to bridge or just what you want to ignore?

A the moment, afaik,  we don't have a way of providing a negative
filter which seems to be what you want.

On 30 October 2012 12:08, James Green <james.mk.green@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary,
>
> I think you're saying that subscription advisories for excluded
> destinations should be suppressed.
>
> On the hub we're seeing advisories for queues on that spoke. Is there
> therefore a bug?
>
> James
>
> On 30 October 2012 11:58, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the destinationFilter does the job of narrowing the list of
>> interesting consumers by limiting the advisory consumer to a subset of
>> destinations.
>> This is auto generated if it is not configured from 5.6.0, but needs
>> both ends of the networkconnector to be => 5.6
>>
>> Have a peek at:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3384
>>
>>
>> On 30 October 2012 09:10, James Green <james.mk.green@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Part of my intention of declaring excluded destinations was to reduce the
>> > amount of traffic over the ADSL line that exists between hub and the
>> spokes.
>> >
>> > However, despite the instruction to ban messaging on these destinations,
>> > the amount of traffic and instructions that the hub receives has not
>> > changed.
>> >
>> > The documentation, in my opinion, gives the impression that excluded
>> > destinations is to segregate the network; actually it only performs a
>> very
>> > thin segregation. People wanting to reduce the bandwidth between nodes
>> will
>> > use this and may be rather disappointed by the results...
>> >
>> > James
>> >
>> > On 29 October 2012 22:23, Christian Posta <christian.posta@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I was expecting to see no traffic of any kind on our hub concerning
>> >> > Outbound.Account.>, yet sub requests are still flooding in.
>> >>
>> >> Can you explain more what you mean? Do you see subs being created for
>> that
>> >> dest on the networked brokers?
>> >>
>> >> If what you mean is you're seeing the logs below, that's as intended.
>> When
>> >> a bridge is established, it will listen to the remote broker's consumer
>> >> advisory messages (it listens to all of them, they are not filtered).
>> If it
>> >> sees a consumerInfo come in for a destination that is excluded, it will
>> >> just ignore it and log the message you see below. This is by design, at
>> the
>> >> moment.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:59 AM, James Green <james.mk.green@gmail.com
>> >> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Given:
>> >> >
>> >> >         <networkConnectors>
>> >> >             <networkConnector uri="static://(ssl://hub:61617)"
>> >> >                 name="hub"
>> >> >                 duplex="true"
>> >> >                 conduitSubscriptions="false"
>> >> >                 dynamicOnly="false">
>> >> >                 <excludedDestinations>
>> >> >                     <queue physicalName="Outbound.Account.>"/>
>> >> >                 </excludedDestinations>
>> >> >                 <staticallyIncludedDestinations>
>> >> >                 </staticallyIncludedDestinations>
>> >> >             </networkConnector>
>> >> >         </networkConnectors>
>> >> >
>> >> > On "hub" I see:
>> >> >
>> >> > 2012-10-29 12:44:34,722 | DEBUG | hub Ignoring sub from zorin,
>> >> destination
>> >> > queue://Outbound.Account.20481 is not permiited :ConsumerInfo
>> {commandId
>> >> =
>> >> > 5, responseRequired = false, consumerId =
>> >> > ID:quarrel-40451-1351260922652-4:760216:-1:2, destination =
>> >> > queue://Outbound.Account.20481, prefetchSize = 1,
>> >> > maximumPendingMessageLimit = 0, browser = false, dispatchAsync = true,
>> >> > selector = MJStage = 'Dispatch', subscriptionName = null, noLocal =
>> >> false,
>> >> > exclusive = false, retroactive = false, priority = 0, brokerPath =
>> null,
>> >> > optimizedAcknowledge = false, noRangeAcks = false,
>> additionalPredicate =
>> >> > null} | org.apache.activemq.network.DemandForwardingBridgeSupport |
>> >> > ActiveMQ Transport: ssl:///n.n.n.n:32831
>> >> >
>> >> > I was expecting to see no traffic of any kind on our hub concerning
>> >> > Outbound.Account.>, yet sub requests are still flooding in.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is this normal? Can I get my desired result?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > James
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> *Christian Posta*
>> >> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>> >> twitter: @christianposta
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://redhat.com
>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>


-- 
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com