Return-Path: 
 <users-return-34511-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org>
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 34FBCF953
	for <apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Thu,  9 May 2013 16:24:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 79165 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2013 16:24:06 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 79087 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2013 16:24:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@activemq.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.activemq.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 79079 invoked by uid 99); 9 May 2013 16:24:06 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 May 2013 16:24:06 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of christian.posta@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.215.53] (HELO mail-la0-f53.google.com) (209.85.215.53)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 May 2013 16:24:00 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id eo20so3056361lab.12
        for <users@activemq.apache.org>; Thu, 09 May 2013 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=xxpYrERuLGau1H6EZq2FRdzP3QLQnb23423LrkBDzoE=;
        b=mNBkhO53OYO6wcGYSDo8k1mMZxFJH9RtEx4FPXfcb6nqBO8mOpiR6pIt0k0M2l/3cT
         lKPTSbjJ7Pbj0ofIOnj7i8W+tj5M0bgUMdn8hD8HwRC6l8IfFw3N4P9Kwq/762FTFtGj
         ECGN+Ikh8GCV/+hCjoLentydT5Q8vQ9lHUC9LiYyosGxtc9LKPR4QfsdK41LP0/QmUXu
         jnI+Xry4yFq1g2NY8WtZ/Xemmf6QOEWJXASk9r6OofAG7UP7kgZqZD7cs8V01israbs9
         jreuVDHH2I64uDtxRI1b9RiJJwp6Gq8iBcUWHk7RzSEniLF9vJ1X9PLAKtqs3vxNB2jh
         Q7pA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.1.196 with SMTP id 4mr5801386lao.54.1368116620329; Thu,
 09 May 2013 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.83.134 with HTTP; Thu, 9 May 2013 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJ5znhuYNzhRsM6UjQJZMF5t951OH0NLXOu2bTgdABHUVpogPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJ5znhuYNzhRsM6UjQJZMF5t951OH0NLXOu2bTgdABHUVpogPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:23:40 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAKS7T5PQzuPCts6aMSUCivfHmSXFTAP+4HnFWieE78S7cLiC4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Configuring limits for advisory topics
From: Christian Posta <christian.posta@gmail.com>
To: "users@activemq.apache.org" <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112cbee2a89fd04dc4b7937
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--089e0112cbee2a89fd04dc4b7937
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

May want to check the size of topic subscriptions... the enqueue counter
for a topic will always increase as messages are passed to the topic... the
subs are what hold on to the messages and the pending message limit applies
to them.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Paul Gale <paul.n.gale@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am trying to configure the use of my advisory topics. Ideally I want to
> have them retain advisory messages by time, e.g., 3 days worth, where if
> not consumed within that time frame they are purged. This is to prevent
> build up of advisory messages. However, I cannot see a way to specify the
> limit to be time based.
>
> As an experiment I tried the following config (with the limit deliberately
> set very low):
>
>           <policyEntry topic="ActiveMQ.Advisory.>"
>                        memoryLimit="2mb"
>                        gcInactiveDestinations="false">
>             <pendingMessageLimitStrategy>
>               <constantPendingMessageLimitStrategy limit="10"/>
>             </pendingMessageLimitStrategy>
>           </policyEntry>
>
>
> It's not working. From looking at the web console it's clear that some
> advisory topics go past the configured limit of 10 as the enqueued count
> keeps climbing.
>
> Is the memory limit taking precedence over the pending message limit
> strategy or is the enqueued count misleading and not reliable?
>
> If this is not the right way to approach this problem please advise on what
> would be the optimal configuration.
>
> FTW: the systemUsage is configured as follows:
>
>     <systemUsage>
>       <systemUsage>
>         <memoryUsage>
>           <memoryUsage limit="50m"/>
>         </memoryUsage>
>         <storeUsage>
>           <storeUsage limit="50m"/>
>         </storeUsage>
>         <tempUsage>
>           <tempUsage limit="50m"/>
>         </tempUsage>
>       </systemUsage>
>     </systemUsage>
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>



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

--089e0112cbee2a89fd04dc4b7937--