| Author |
Message
|
| mq_crazy |
 Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: amq7469 |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 295
|
We are trying to send some messages and our channel is retrying saying that the receiving queuemanager is not able to accept any messages. I called them up as i don't have access to their mq, they are saying that they see this error in their error logs
AMQ7469: Transactions rolled back to release log space.
EXPLANATION:
The log space for the queue manager is becoming full. One or more long-running
transactions have been rolled back to release log space so that the queue
manager can continue to process requests.
ACTION:
Try to ensure that the duration of your transactions is not excessive. Consider
increasing the size of the log to allow transactions to last longer before the
log starts to become full.
I know how to fix it, by recreating their queuemanager with bigger logfile size. What they say is that we are sending those messages in a transaction causing that, so we can send one message in each transaction to avoid this issue. Is it the sending side that defines that this no. of messages in a transaction?? how can i just change it?
Last edited by mq_crazy on Mon May 16, 2005 9:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You can adjust the channel's batch size (in this case, decrease it).
They can also increase the NUMBER of log files on their size, without increasing the SIZE of each file - and without recreating their queue manager.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mq_crazy |
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 295
|
| Thanks jeff. I have decreased the batch size to 5 and it works great. Also will there be any performance issue by doing this?? is it better with bigger batch size or smaller?? Thanks again |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
There are performance implications of decreasing the batch size.
You are making more transactions, which means more activity on the log files.
You'll have to monitor your own systems to determine how significant this impact is, and whether larger transactions or smaller transactions are "better".
Also, "working" is always better than "not working".
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mq_crazy |
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 295
|
| Thanks jeff for the info. Either bigger batch or smaller batch it has to write to the logs anyway, so why would be there more activity on log files for smaller batches?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
It's opening and closing the log files more often.
Also, I'm fairly positive that transactions have at least headers if not also footers in the logs - so more transactions means more headers(footers).
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mq_crazy |
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 295
|
| Ya i agree with you. Thanks again for your input |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
