From users-return-49374-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@activemq.apache.org Wed Feb 14 15:23:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DBBA180621 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:23:51 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 17342 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2018 14:23:50 -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 17244 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2018 14:23:49 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:23:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 0E8091A02C1 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:23:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 5.21 X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.21 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=1.999] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MDyQV1ZHML2E for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id AC7985F473 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:23:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id b25so3988922pfd.9 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 06:23:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hR5ZU1amNJbWvKiIJmPr20QObzciONnmyhA+vOB5+oM=; b=G464SPc11/HBYMD8V2tqcipP7tF65UmkcMNvWT2luWDiS3xJKfq6tMeMLO+3x6r/vw z417GIpOKJJo8g9xxD9zVUHxqsBdZybnKBiiHf6UaUMjlGeO77eTmHqsNQteblEE2jPq hniB8Hg1vg+UhJnDGINQTENgcGH89p1aM5Cs5XyYQy7wdeRgklSY4qFsTdZr4O8iorUN R6+/Fm5+KOpCquYjsKxj48+x1FnAZo+Qv18/3p+nq8+YpQ8oH4YHNy+RYHRbT0MokogJ xMGoB5GAq1tInZr/PnIPbwzln/UpGX93QfxPSWllhPtBDD3f4XH0joEG5J36ATxok4qp wGAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=hR5ZU1amNJbWvKiIJmPr20QObzciONnmyhA+vOB5+oM=; b=AbyYmTarXPar5Iy/umXTQ45MhAxZ0MenMVBdT+je5xKmyI0xqHfUnixsrMQjwndwqp nnuwOpAOpXHjiGC4uSWTw2VlxjhP/qTC0xoQ7tI76tlvQTzOn21K4t0fNNLrlSgMYV/e ulTsIkbLd/thKnwk73hB3vQ2rwkuxA9kiwOequ2hSyFyblypC2csjj9dtHB1pj+tT7is v8m+I0XGRoBpdW+NGWgIOX9oZ4N07qJhgkrIFjK3R5J2AHdfNBEECIyzjGhEF8f3TlZx kQM7fLO8j6eXkv5iX0N4ozGYRIVZ2EyYiFw92zi/JWnNQPhTZwRadZxPE9HTAmF0m3Ov teOA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBqivEZpqr7xp3ctVHstvSpaLjhbDZ1590sD0pf2AhfxYHjnO/D mQjK9bal2dmf061bBp4bkT/QhY966fk6nPRDsFXgcA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227giCcIYVlbkNhDFzumHCv9V6BfKvmwh9TkLJqB+8CkhOpp59RoxSSBXSZo8ZR7G26ng3hg+KAqB8tMmCw4jdg= X-Received: by 10.98.68.26 with SMTP id r26mr1456706pfa.231.1518618218174; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 06:23:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1518106425781-0.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1518106425781-0.post@n4.nabble.com> From: Gary Tully Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:23:27 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: what value of networkTTL need to use for synchronous request and reply in network connectors To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149a1fa719f0a05652cdb20" --001a1149a1fa719f0a05652cdb20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" In the event of connection failures there is a good chance of loosing messages. If you are about messages and replies then use real queues, maybe have a reply queue per process or per application and use selectors based on the correlation id if you need to multiplex. The lifetime of a temp queue is tied to the connection that created it or to the bridge that forwards, in the event of failure and recovery the temp goes away for some time. Errors are inevitable and there is the potential for loss. There was a bunch of work to ensure all errors were reported but it is not a good plan if you care about reply messages. see: RequestReplyTempDestRemovalAdvisoryRaceTest for an example test scenario in the unit tests. On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 at 16:38 Rajesh Malla wrote: > We are using n/w connectors between 3 brokers > is > A->B > A->C > > B->A > B->C > > C->A > C->B > > also we are using synchronous request and reply pattern using camel to send > and receive message in temp queue. > we have question is it good to use networkTTL = 2 in above configuration ? > will it work properly or > is there any chance of losing message ? > for example > > A B C > tmpQ tmpQ tmpQ > > what if producer send message to A and waiting on tmpQ, consumer C receives > message and reply to tmpQ [ of C], ? > > A,B,C are producers and consumers on tmpQ > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html > --001a1149a1fa719f0a05652cdb20--