Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07B94FC35 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 17435 invoked by uid 500); 29 Apr 2013 20:22:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 17417 invoked by uid 500); 29 Apr 2013 20:22:14 -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 17407 invoked by uid 99); 29 Apr 2013 20:22:14 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:22:14 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=5.0 tests=URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.139.250.139] (HELO joe.nabble.com) (216.139.250.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:22:08 +0000 Received: from [192.168.236.139] (helo=joe.nabble.com) by joe.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UWuZj-0008SP-Bd for users@activemq.apache.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:21:27 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:21:27 -0700 (PDT) From: SledgeHammer To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <1367266887353-4666412.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1367259294099-4666407.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1367019179924-4666300.post@n4.nabble.com> <1367253514703-4666394.post@n4.nabble.com> <1367256463442-4666398.post@n4.nabble.com> <1367259294099-4666407.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Memory leak?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hmm... I switched the response queue to be a "permanent" queue and it looks like it doesn't have the same memory leak issue. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Memory-leak-tp4666300p4666412.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.