ActiveMQ
  1. ActiveMQ
  2. AMQ-1297

Memory leak creating temporary queues

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 4.1.1
    • Fix Version/s: 5.1.0
    • Component/s: Broker
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      After observing severe memory leaks in our production servers, eventually finishing with the JVM GC running intensively and activemq dropping connections due to inactivity (and even out of memory errors), we have proceeded in the following way, trying to isolate the error cause:

      1.-Create a single client to be able to produce the same effect on an standalone activemq broker (our servers are actually embedding a broker, but for the sake of clarity, we thought it should be better to isolate the broker in a dedicated JVM). In the first test code, the client just used a group of threads to create sessions, send a message on a producer created on that session, and expect a return message in a consumer, created on a temporary queue of the given session, setted as jmsReplyTo to the message. Later, we find out that we didn't need to send any message to produce the memory leak. I'm attaching the code of the client, that summarizing, does the following:

      • es.tid.planb.test.JMSBug <queue> <threads> <iters>
      • Creates a connection to the broker and starts it.
      • Creates <threads> threads. Each thread does, <iters>/<threads> times:
      • Creates a session
      • Creates a producer on <queue>, a temporary queue and a consumer on this temporary queue.
      • Closes the session and the temporary queue.
        (Note that it doesn't need to send any message for the leak to show)
      • Wait for all the threads to finish, and closes the connection.

      2.-We tested the client against:
      activemq 4.1.1
      activemq 4.1-SNAPSHOT (apache-activemq-4.1-20070615.012351-63.tar.gz)
      activemq 4.2-SNAPSHOT (apache-activemq-4.2-20070607.230602-81.tar.gz)

      Using the Sun JVMs:
      1.5.0_07
      1.5.0_11
      1.6.0

      running on Sun UltraSparc, solaris 9 architecture.

      Using the configuration that I'm also attaching to this mail. It uses a openwire and an stomp connector (just to resemble our failing scenario), and a oracle datasource (anyway, we have reproduced the same leaks using the derby bundled database).

      3.-We observed the following facts:
      -The memory consumption grows up, and doesn't get lower, even after the clients finishes (and even forcing the Garbage Collector to run).

      • Looking at jmap heap histograms, it seems that a lot of objects are not released (org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Topic) being among them.
      • Disabling the advisoryTopic support in the broker leads to a less severe leakage, but anyway, unacceptable for our requisites.
      • Using the Derby embedded database, the heap growed to similar sizes.
      • activemq 4.2-SNAPSHOT seems to leek less memory, but is still severe enough (and produced for us even worse problems (AMQ-1296)
      • Commenting out the creation of the temporary queue and the consumer on it seems to avoid the leakage.
      • The amount of memory leaked doesn't seem related with the number of threads the client uses to do its job. The only difference is the time involved as you can see in the included charts.

      4.-I'm sending you the following information.

      • The source code of the test program (JMSBug.java)
      • The activemq xbean configuration (activemq.xml)
      • The heap sizes and histograms for the following cases:
      • Just after starting activemq (histo-startup and heap-startup)
      • After starting, running JMSBug (with threads=1 iters=20000) and forcing the GC from the JMX console (histo-1-20000 and heap-1-20000).
      • After starting, running JMSBug (with threads=50 iters=20000) and forcing the GC from the JMX console (histo-50-20000 and heap-50-20000).
      • A pair of screenshots of the heap chart after running both tests. (jmx-heap-1-20000.png and jmx-heap-50-20000.png)

        Activity

        Hide
        Manuel Teira added a comment -

        Talking about issues with 4.2-SNAPSHOT, I wanted to refer to AMQ-1295, not AMQ-1296, less problematic.

        Show
        Manuel Teira added a comment - Talking about issues with 4.2-SNAPSHOT, I wanted to refer to AMQ-1295 , not AMQ-1296 , less problematic.
        Hide
        Matt Pontius added a comment -

        I am experiencing the same problem. I posted details to the forum:

        http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=11218217

        Show
        Matt Pontius added a comment - I am experiencing the same problem. I posted details to the forum: http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=11218217

          People

          • Assignee:
            Rob Davies
            Reporter:
            Manuel Teira
          • Votes:
            2 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development