'Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openejb-development
Subject:    Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
From:       Jonathan Gallimore <jonathan.gallimore () gmail ! com>
Date:       2019-09-30 21:00:58
Message-ID: CAGRgoZgvAARTCJ2rKLm_5KTCXOWQx+=DhUaF0CqEEELqcLQFrw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Does something need to failover in this scenario, in order to reproduce it?

Jon

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <exabrial@gmail.com>
wrote:

>  Here's the ref: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 The
> scenario mentioned in the ticket is sending a message from an MDB, which
> call connectionPool.getConnecion() twice. We actually haven't observed that
> problem in practice (doesn't mean it's not happening though).
>
> >  I'd expect that transaction caching in the pooling would result in all
> connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one
> transaction
> I actually wasn't aware this existed (go figure). This could be why we're
> not seeing the issue on the MDB/Send a Message scenario.
>
> The scenario where we can reliably reproduce the problem is to have a Bean
> Managed Transaction  start, send a bunch of messages, then commit the
> transaction, all in the loop. While this isn't explicitly stated in the
> original ticket, it has the same leak.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Jencks <david.a.jencks@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Could you explain this scenario further? Are there multiple activemq
> > managed connections to different brokers but associated with the same
> > connection handle? Or one managed connection associated with more than
> one
> > "physical" connection? I'd expect that transaction caching in the pooling
> > would result in all connection handles being associated with one managed
> > connection in one transaction.
> >
> > Thanks
> > David Jencks
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher <exabrial@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It was 5.15.9 that was causing problems with the failover transport
> > (Which
> > > is a best practice to use). Essentially you memory leak when two or
> more
> > > physical activemq connections get involved in an XA transaction
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:55 AM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might
> > mean
> > >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan
> > (Fisher)
> > >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
> > >>
> > >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community
> > can
> > >> decide what to do.
> > >>
> > >> Jon
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > >> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Jonathan,
> > >>>
> > >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
> > >>>
> > >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its
> transient
> > >>> jackson-databind dependency.
> > >>>
> > >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been
> updated
> > >>> yet :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Richard
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
> > >>>
> > >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us.
> We
> > were
> > >>>
> > >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking
> on
> > TLS
> > >>>
> > >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
> > >>>
> > >>> problem.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
> > >>>
> > >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > >>>
> > >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8
> API
> > jar.
> > >>>
> > >>> New snapshot deployed.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close
> > the
> > >>>
> > >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>
> > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > exabrial@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>
> > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > >>>
> > >>> exabrial@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
> > >>>
> > >>> issues
> > >>>
> > >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> > >>>
> > >>> affects
> > >>>
> > >>> all versions of TomEE).
> > >>>
> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
> > >>>
> > >>> now
> > >>>
> > >>> because
> > >>>
> > >>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
> > >>>
> > >>> transactional
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > >>>
> > >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
> > >>>
> > >>> fix
> > >>>
> > >>> in
> > >>>
> > >>> before rolling.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>
> > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > >>>
> > >>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
> > >>>
> > >>> seen
> > >>>
> > >>> some
> > >>>
> > >>> fixes.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
> > >>>
> > >>> some
> > >>>
> > >>> releases
> > >>>
> > >>> and votes?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
> > >>>
> > >>> that
> > >>>
> > >>> needs
> > >>>
> > >>> some more reviewers and votes.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> > >>>
> > >>> as
> > >>>
> > >>> half
> > >>>
> > >>> full.
> > >>>
> > >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> > >>>
> > >>> needs
> > >>>
> > >>> to
> > >>>
> > >>> be.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> as
> > >>>
> > >>> half
> > >>>
> > >>> full.
> > >>>
> > >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> needs
> > >>>
> > >>> to
> > >>>
> > >>> be.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
> > >>> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
> > >>> Max-Planck-Str. 39
> > >>> D-74081 Heilbronn
> > >>> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
> > >>> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> > >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> > half
> > > full.
> > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
> to
> > > be.
> >
>
>
> --
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
> full.
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> be.
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic