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 james.mk.green@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKS7T5MhdcOhsECQ+=jRA00uKpnZ1Negq04+VEFK_NX0Q0-2cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOT3TWr_kEUYAwpGNq7MpLYs5oUmFw7b2bRrvqd=5ZzgbyyJYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKS7T5PKjh_6qMaCZTJfEtYsmT87tq+ZbvwRtMnRGSONm_UhCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOT3TWpu7wbH83vD_kBhDiWOoA+y7uCkGRU=PopUx909D_s14A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKS7T5P5z777oC=Dx4=eQbvuijtx4TcKuJ21dzFTWMPwAdRLTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOT3TWoaqai=Xqcz-Fw96AU8xENhcnPRewiif08a2bHOrH=g9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKS7T5MhdcOhsECQ+=jRA00uKpnZ1Negq04+VEFK_NX0Q0-2cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:26:57 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAMH6+axioQmo4L1HNxByp4NvhQnAYvwjhtNn4GaFUwhjrCwi7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Network of broker question
From: James Green <james.mk.green@gmail.com>
To: users <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6da96053842204d279c90b

--047d7b6da96053842204d279c90b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

We have observed this when the link between A & B is slow. Probably a
different scenario to the one Mohit is describing though.

In our case we had a hub behind a shared ADSL link and several spokes in
"production land". We would see messages piling up at random on the spokes
until restarts where issued of the brokers. In the end, out of ideas, we
shifted the hub to be in the same network at the spokes and messages began
flowing far more reliably.

James


On 4 January 2013 15:10, Christian Posta <christian.posta@gmail.com> wrote:

> PFC can still affect the network bridge. We should figure out why messages
> are piling up (unexpectedly??). Do you have a test case that can reproduce
> this?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Mohit Anchlia <mohitanchlia@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I think it might be because of this flow control message that I see
> between
> > brokers. Here pprfdaa300 is another broker. But why would this happen
> > between brokers though?
> >
> > 2013-01-03 14:44:21,587 | INFO  |
> > Usage(default:memory:queue://eventsEndpoint:memory) percentUsage=0%,
> > usage=0, limit=20971520,
> > percentUsageMinDelta=1%;Parent:Usage(default:memory) percentUsage=106%,
> > usage=22325599, limit=20971520, percentUsageMinDelta=1%: Usage Manager
> > Memory Limit reached. Producer
> > (ID:pprfdaa300.ind.net-51311-1351809358414-145227:1:1:1) stopped to
> prevent
> > flooding queue://eventsEndpoint. See
> > http://activemq.apache.org/producer-flow-control.html for more info
> > (blocking for: 6822s) | org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Queue |
> ActiveMQ
> > Transport: tcp://pprfdaa300.ind.net/10.145.67.135:61616@41478
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Christian Posta
> > <christian.posta@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Can you post the config for the two brokers?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Mohit Anchlia <mohitanchlia@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's A <----> B
> > > >
> > > > Broker A has 2 messages but no consumers
> > > > Broker B has consumers but don't get messages forwarded
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Christian Posta
> > > > <christian.posta@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can you explain how the brokers are set up? A ---> B ? and which
> has
> > > the
> > > > > messages and which has the consumer?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Mohit Anchlia <
> > mohitanchlia@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As I understand that if I have network of brokers than the
> messages
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > sent to the broker that has active consumers on it. I have 2
> > network
> > > of
> > > > > > brokers and one of them has 2 messages and no client consumers
> and
> > > > other
> > > > > > one has consumers. I was expecting those 2 messages to be pulled
> by
> > > > other
> > > > > > broker for processing. Could you please help me understand why
> > those
> > > 2
> > > > > > messages wouldn't get processed?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Christian Posta*
> > > > > http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> > > > > twitter: @christianposta
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Christian Posta*
> > > http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> > > twitter: @christianposta
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Posta*
> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> twitter: @christianposta
>

--047d7b6da96053842204d279c90b--