Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tbain98@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <7e190268-f0f3-c2a9-f54a-957abd5a7ee2@gmail.com>
References: <D3FF6AF3.4EC4F%gmina@connectfirst.com> <7e190268-f0f3-c2a9-f54a-957abd5a7ee2@gmail.com>
From: Tim Bain <tbain@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:24:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CAPVVMa-QnKU2FSaBChZbeX4ap-NfRKuYkF5cv4QrS5ckkOsVjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Problem With Network of Brokers 5.14.0
To: ActiveMQ Users <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142608ca0b86e053c8c9b6d
archived-at: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:25:07 -0000

--001a1142608ca0b86e053c8c9b6d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If that's true, the decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority property (see
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html for details) would
prevent the problem.  Though it could result in less even load balancing
across consumers connected to different brokers; it depends on how the
producers and consumers are distributed.

On Sep 15, 2016 8:04 AM, "Matt Pavlovich" <mattrpav@gmail.com> wrote:

> How are your consumers setup? This looks like a mesh config.. I'm
> wondering if the max message hop ttl was reached and the messages are
> parked in that one broker. That scenarios is helped by splitting the
> consumerTTL and the messageTTL and not using networkTTL.
>
> Do you have a specific reason for not setting conduitSubscriptions=3Dtrue=
?
>
>         <networkConnector name=3D"linkToBroker1"
>                    uri=3D"static:(tcp://c01-meq1:61616)"
>                    networkTTL=3D"3"
>                    conduitSubscriptions=3D"false" />
>         <networkConnector name=3D"linkToBroker2"
>                 uri=3D"static:(tcp://c01-meq2:61616)"
>                 networkTTL=3D"3"
>                 conduitSubscriptions=3D"false" />
>
>
> On 9/14/16 10:01 PM, Geoffrey Mina wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>> I am pretty new to ActiveMQ as we just deployed into our stack.
>>
>> We had a network of brokers have a significant problem tonight due to
>> (what appeared to be) a single broker.  2 of the 3 were processing messa=
ges
>> OK and the third was queuing up and not processing messages quickly.  Th=
is
>> is for a real-time application and seconds (even milliseconds) count.
>>
>>
>> There was absolutely nothing in the log file that was interesting.  I
>> even restarted the =E2=80=9Cbad=E2=80=9D broker and when it came back on=
line it was
>> behaving identically.  We have persistence completely disabled and there=
 is
>> not even a kahadb on the file system.
>>
>>
>> I have attached my config here for one of the brokers (all configs
>> identical except for the the network config).  If anyone sees anything
>> glaringly obvious, please let me know.  We just deployed this cluster of
>> servers last Friday.  It has processed hundreds of millions of messages =
in
>> the last few days =E2=80=93 before it began to misbehave tonight.
>>
>>
>> ActiveMQ 5.14.0
>>
>>
>> java version "1.8.0_102"
>>
>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_102-b14)
>>
>> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.102-b14, mixed mode)
>>
>>
>> Amazon EC2 Host
>>
>> CentOS 7
>>
>> 3.10.0-327.10.1.el7.x86_64
>>
>> 4 x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz
>>
>> 8G RAM
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>

--001a1142608ca0b86e053c8c9b6d--