activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Posta <christian.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Broker Leak
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:36:25 GMT
I just ran your tests.
Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case of the consumers not going away.
Looks like the connection wasn't properly cleaned up on the broker's side
after the kill -9. Let me try with the trunk and see if there's anything
different before I dig deeper to see why it wasn't cleaned up.


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jerry Cwiklik <cwiklik@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Thanks, so if the subs dont go away the broker thinks it can deliver the
> messages to them even though the destination is gone? Seems that a temp
> queue removal should result/trigger a cleanup of messages associated with
> that destination.
>
> I dont have JUnit test. Instead, I attach sources for a simple jms producer
> and a consumer which I ran as separate processes. While the producer is
> blasting msgs I kill it with -9, force the GC in the broker's jvm via
> jConsole and dump the heap to analyze. I ran this scenario multiple times
> and am seeing dead messages in a VM cursor.
>
> ProducerWithConsumer.java
> <
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4660465/ProducerWithConsumer.java
> >
> SpringConsumerWithReply.java
> <
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4660465/SpringConsumerWithReply.java
> >
> Thanks, Jerry C
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Broker-Leak-tp4660437p4660465.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message