7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

jgallimore
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
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 <
[hidden email]> 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
>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

exabrial12
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

jgallimore
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> 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.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

exabrial12
I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> > 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 | [hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

jgallimore
Oh wow, that would be amazing!

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> > > 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 | [hidden email]
> 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.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> > > > 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 | [hidden email]
> > 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.
> >
>
   --
    Jean-Louis Monteiro
    http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
    http://www.tomitribe.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

exabrial12
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> > > > > 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 | [hidden email]
> > > 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 | [hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

Alex The Rocker
In reply to this post by jgallimore
Hello Jon,

As long latest CVE fixes are part of upcoming 7.0.x & 7.1.x, that's a
very good thing to have such refresh as soon as possible.

Kind regards,
Alexandre

Le lun. 23 sept. 2019 à 21:33, Jonathan Gallimore
<[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

Zowalla, Richard
In reply to this post by exabrial12
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh wow, that would be amazing!

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
wrote:

I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
[hidden email]> 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 <
[hidden email]>
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <
[hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
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 | [hidden email]
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

smime.p7s (9K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

jgallimore
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh wow, that would be amazing!

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
wrote:

I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
[hidden email]> 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 <
[hidden email]>
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <
[hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
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 | [hidden email]
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

exabrial12
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>
>> [hidden email]>
>>
>> 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 <
>>
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>
>> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
>>
>> 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 | [hidden email]
>>
>> 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: [hidden email]
>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
>>
>

--
Jonathan | [hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

David Jencks-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>
>>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>>
>>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>
>>> 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 <
>>>
>>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>
>>> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
>>>
>>> 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 | [hidden email]
>>>
>>> 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: [hidden email]
>>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan | [hidden email]
> 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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

exabrial12
 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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>> 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 <
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>> 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 | [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>> 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: [hidden email]
> >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan | [hidden email]
> > 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 | [hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

jgallimore
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 <
> > >> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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 <
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> > >>>
> > >>> 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 | [hidden email]
> > >>>
> > >>> 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: [hidden email]
> > >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan | [hidden email]
> > > 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 | [hidden email]
> 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.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

exabrial12
No, normal operation causes the problem

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > >> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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 <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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 | [hidden email]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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: [hidden email]
> > > >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan | [hidden email]
> > > > 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 | [hidden email]
> > 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 | [hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

jgallimore
In reply to this post by exabrial12
Reviving this thread. I have one further update that I'd like to get in,
which is to update commons-daemon to the latest version which resolves an
issue running the Windows service with a 32bit JVM on a 64bit server. If
there's no objections, I'll roll releases for 7.0.7, 7.1.2 and 8.0.1 as ass
three have some dependency updates.

If you have any objections, please shout.

Jon

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:10 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>
> >> [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]
> >
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>
> >> [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>
> >> 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 <
> >>
> >> [hidden email]> 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 <
> >>
> >> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
> >>
> >> 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 | [hidden email]
> >>
> >> 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: [hidden email]
> >> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jonathan | [hidden email]
> 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.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases

Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)
In reply to this post by jgallimore
No objections, but I will time this release with the docker releases, providing you all are happy with that.  That way, we don’t updated then in less than a week, we put out a new version and have to update docker again.

Thanks,
Rod.


On 11/7/19, 4:47 AM, "Jonathan Gallimore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the sender.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
    Reviving this thread. I have one further update that I'd like to get in,
    which is to update commons-daemon to the latest version which resolves an
    issue running the Windows service with a 32bit JVM on a 64bit server. If
    there's no objections, I'll roll releases for 7.0.7, 7.1.2 and 8.0.1 as ass
    three have some dependency updates.
   
    If you have any objections, please shout.
   
    Jon
   
    On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:10 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]>
    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 <
    > [hidden email]> 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 <
    > > [hidden email]> 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 <
    > >>
    > >> [hidden email]> 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 <
    > >>
    > >> [hidden email]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[hidden email]
    > >
    > >>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
    > >>
    > >> [hidden email]> 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 <
    > >>
    > >> [hidden email]>
    > >>
    > >> 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 <
    > >>
    > >> [hidden email]> 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 <
    > >>
    > >> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email]
    > >>
    > >> 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 | [hidden email]
    > >>
    > >> 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: [hidden email]
    > >> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
    > >>
    > >
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan | [hidden email]
    > 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.
    >