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 christian.posta@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1375397810293-4670029.post@n4.nabble.com>
References: <1374680070156-4669679.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAKS7T5N5Ze+CL5ownFw48T+sadLNM-saAzFvN-mbOEtcikVxLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1375058415828-4669819.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAKS7T5P5Yz41DeHoo7tTUFwk-pRpjAOXJQf+VUe1uqsE=SA-sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1375114612647-4669838.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAKS7T5NZgkKY0TCys6St+73FwFm3tRzwLWvth+mHjHH9KjV_qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1375225948718-4669896.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<1375375672931-4670001.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<CAKS7T5NLFqSRKJf2bUsks0FiaA9mfHE_hHOh4_rAC6m3zFQddg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKS7T5NWQ7UEiwWCbUTGKkUm4mp4t=Tvb9+A-oWDbj+eyWu0+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1375397810293-4670029.post@n4.nabble.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:18:29 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAKS7T5N2Ha_tbMcMME9JVPgL3VfZbSan7Ptuzm7YpqDY6zxf5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: cursor memory usage/limit vs memory usage/limit
From: Christian Posta <christian.posta@gmail.com>
To: "users@activemq.apache.org" <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133fb5458047004e2eb0f02

--001a1133fb5458047004e2eb0f02
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Just tried that on my side and didn't make a difference.
BTW, i've committed the test to a private branch here:

https://github.com/christian-posta/activemq-durable-sub-pfc-tests/tree/jake-choi-tests


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Jake Choi <jw@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> I just got a pretty interesting observation: I just tried my own tweaked
> PendingDurableSubscriberPolicy (as I learned from the other thread, see
> below) to the test code I've been using:
>
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-configure-this-combination-of-queue-cursors-tt4670003.html#a4670027
>
> Then, the test code went through:  MemoryLimitTest.java
> <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4670029/MemoryLimitTest.java>
>
> -----
>
> Let's explain what's happened again in the test code above, shortly.  With
> only durable subscriber with prefetchSize=0, persistent message publishing
> to the topic is blocked (PFC) by hitting per-destination memory limit
> (1MB).
> But, when I changed the PendingDurableSubscriberPolicy from the default
> "StorePendingDurableSubscriberMessageStoragePolicy" to the customized one
> (see below), persistent message publishing didn't get stuck by any PFC but
> went through very well.
>
>
>         // This makes the test flow through!
>         // Without this (with default
> StorePendingDurableSubscriberMessageStoragePolicy),
>         // persistent message publishing to the topic got stuck. Why??
>         policyEntry.setPendingDurableSubscriberPolicy(new
> StorePendingDurableSubscriberMessageStoragePolicy() {
>             @Override
>             public PendingMessageCursor
> getSubscriberPendingMessageCursor(Broker broker, String clientId, String
> name,
>                     int maxBatchSize, DurableTopicSubscription sub) {
>                 broker.getBrokerService().setPersistent(false);
>                 StoreDurableSubscriberCursor cursor =
> (StoreDurableSubscriberCursor) super
>                         .getSubscriberPendingMessageCursor(broker,
> clientId,
> name, maxBatchSize, sub);
>                 broker.getBrokerService().setPersistent(true);
>                 return cursor;
>             }
>         });
>
>
> I'm curious what difference is there between these two
> "PendingDurableSubscriberPolicy"s particularly for the persistent pending
> cursor used inside..  Strange..
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/cursor-memory-usage-limit-vs-memory-usage-limit-tp4669679p4670029.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


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

--001a1133fb5458047004e2eb0f02--