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 3BE5C11982 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 22:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45512 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2013 22:11:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 45483 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2013 22:11:51 -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 45473 invoked by uid 99); 13 May 2013 22:11:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 22:11:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (athena.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, 13 May 2013 22:11:47 +0000 Received: from [192.168.236.139] (helo=joe.nabble.com) by joe.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Uc0xC-0001OM-6P for users@activemq.apache.org; Mon, 13 May 2013 15:10:46 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:10:41 -0700 (PDT) From: fenbers To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <519164F3.9080303@noaa.gov> In-Reply-To: References: <1368467410527-4666972.post@n4.nabble.com> <519135B4.2000901@noaa.gov> Subject: Re: Wire Format Negotiation Timeout -- Say what?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_180673_2421074.1368483041188" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_180673_2421074.1368483041188 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, here's some useful info...  I used:     tcpdump tcp port 61616 and host dell7 I noticed that if I use:  ?wireFormat.maxInactivityDurationInitialDelay=30000 in my client to extend the timeout to 30 seconds instead of the default 10 seconds, then my client (running on dell7) completes its message send without the "Wire Format Negotiation Timeout" error.  So I ran it both ways (10 seconds and 30 seconds) and monitored the output from tcpdump in each case.  When the error occurs, there is still two-way communication going on between the client and the broker, but the number of lines from tcpdump is much shorter (because a connection is made, but creating a session fails).  When I extend the InactivityDelay to 30 seconds, and the client completes normally (but takes more than 20 seconds to send a 40-character text string), then the amount of tcpdump output increases by a factor of 10! In a well-tuned system/network, I would think that sending a 40-character text string to ActiveMQ would be nearly instantaneous from a human's perspective, right? What I learned from this is that I can reduce the occurrences of the error by increasing the amount of patience (e.g., 30 seconds) my client app is to have, but I fear this may also cause some "bogging down" side effects since each message attempt may take up to 30 seconds.  I also learned that our networking issues may be more acute than I realized. What else I learned is that a connection is established nearly instantaneously, but creating the session is the part that often takes more than 20 seconds (and fails if it takes more than maxInactivityDurationInitialDelay).  So if my network is slow, why would the connection occur instantaneously, but the creation of the session take so long??  It's not the sending of the text string that is the problem, but the creation of the session...  Is there something I can control that affects how long it takes to create a session?  Intuitively, I would have thought that the most time-consuming part of sending the message is the actual sending of the text string, not creating the session.  Does this point to a bug in ActiveMQ's createSession() method?? Thanks for the help! Mark On 5/13/2013 3:40 PM, ceposta [via ActiveMQ] wrote: You can use wireshark (or tcpdump) on the broker machine to see if the client's WireFormatInfo is coming through and whether the broker is sending one. Wireshark does have a built in activemq command codec so you can see the command objects going through. You can also try things like ping or traceroute to see if the client can get to the broker. mark_fenbers.vcf (360 bytes) -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Wire-Format-Negotiation-Timeout-Say-what-tp4666972p4666990.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------=_Part_180673_2421074.1368483041188--