Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A73200CC6 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:20:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 268A3166A40; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B49B166A3E for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:20:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 34016 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jul 2017 10:20:18 -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 34005 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jul 2017 10:20:18 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:20:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DA5B4C01E3 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:20:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.487 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.487 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRzL2Fib48zT for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 9B3C25FCD8 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mjoe.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.57]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D62753E804BF for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 03:20:16 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 03:00:40 -0700 (PDT) From: akpuvvada To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <1500372040061-4728623.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1500029977053-4728551.post@n4.nabble.com> <1500080053974-4728566.post@n4.nabble.com> <1500169386872-4728578.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Active MQ - Performance with CLIENT Ack MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:20:25 -0000 TestActiveMQ.zip Attached the TIBCO BW Project I am using. It is not a Java code, TIBCO BW is a GUI (Zero Coding) Integration tool that stored the configuration in XML and converts the XMLs to Java code at Run-time and execute. So I have no idea how this actually works and when the acknowledge() gets executed. However, I can confirm from the logs that Acknowledgement is sent by the code. Active MQ is not accepting or not processing the acknowledgement. I read that Client acknowledgement is actually "Acknowledge All Previous". Would Active MQ wait to process Acks if it is too busy with other things. Producer is producing at a very fast rate and temp space has filled-up fast when this is observed. Could that be an issue? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Active-MQ-Performance-with-CLIENT-Ack-tp4728551p4728623.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.