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 mattrpav@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Consumer performance problem with Tx
From: Matt Pavlovich <mattrpav@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1409820895434-4685279.post@n4.nabble.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:29:19 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E91D747D-DB2D-4FC3-8500-C39E97145E9D@gmail.com>
References: <1409659543740-4685226.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <32C7B0B5-138E-4931-BCED-F7745042F8D2@gmail.com>
 <1409820895434-4685279.post@n4.nabble.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org

Justin-

Sorry to hear that you=92ve had problems with ActiveMQ in the past. I=92ve=
 had a lot of successful deployments in large-scale environments (3,000+ =
brokers, hub and spoke with 1 broker serving up to 1,000 clients, 4,000 =
queues and 3,000 total connections) with transactions, and the full boat =
of features with newer releases of ActiveMQ. If you don=92t have luck =
with alternatives, I suggest you give newer versions a second look.

The replicated Master-Slave was definitely a lightly-maintained feature =
and has a lot of operational problems (how to resync after an outage, =
etc).=20

Back to your original issue.. I've seen a lot of issues with Spring JMS =
Template on the consumer side (esp with transactions). Recommend trying =
with straight JMS code to isolate if you have a pooling/caching issue or =
a broker bug and go from there.

-Matt

On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:54 AM, James Black <be_strew@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>=20
> thanks for the response.
>=20
> The reason that we have not migrated to a later version of ActiveMq is =
that
> we are looking to move away from using ActiveMq due to the problems we =
have
> had.  Therefore, we wanted to avoid going through the whole testing =
process
> for a later version of ActiveMq.  We use shared nothing master/slave
> replicated which has been removed in later ActiveMq versions.
>=20
> We are doing JMS local (originally we tried XA but had massive =
problems with
> that) and we have tested with all caching settings for the DMLC to no =
avail.=20
> Our connection is not provided from a pool but directly from standard
> ActiveMq connection factory =
(org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory),
> due to the fact that it is cached in the DMLC.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Justin
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> View this message in context: =
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Consumer-performance-problem-with-Tx=
-tp4685226p4685279.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.