You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by "Shi Lei (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2014/11/21 08:34:33 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (AMQ-5447) Memory Leak after shutdown embeded
broker with JDBC persistence
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5447?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Shi Lei updated AMQ-5447:
-------------------------
Description:
After shutdown embeded activemq broker with JDBC store, 2 'ActiveMQ JDBC PA Scheduled Task' is still alive.
Because the 2 thread's Thread factory is object of JDBCPersistenceAdapter's inner class, so the object of JDBCPersistenceAdapter can be reached from the 2 threads, JDBCPersistenceAdapter has a field point to BrokerService. So the instance of BrokerService can be reached from the 2 threads.
So the stopped brokerService cannot be GC.
The root cause is that when stopping JDBCPersistenceAdapter, only cancelling cleanupTicket without shutdown clockDaemon, that's why the 2 threads are still alive.
According to http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-i-restart-embedded-broker.html, it's better (more reliable) to instantiate the broker again instead of reuse old broker. So if I restart embeded broker, there will be 1 more BrokerService in memory. I think it's memory leak.
was:
After shutdown embeded activemq broker with JDBC store, 2 'ActiveMQ JDBC PA Scheduled Task' is still alive.
Because the 2 thread's Thread factory is object of JDBCPersistenceAdapter's inner class, so the object of JDBCPersistenceAdapter can be referenced from the 2 threads, JDBCPersistenceAdapter has a field point to BrokerService. So the instance of BrokerService can be referenced from the 2 threads.
So the stopped brokerService cannot be GC.
The root cause is that when stopping JDBCPersistenceAdapter, only cancelling cleanupTicket without shutdown clockDaemon, that's why the 2 threads are still alive.
According to http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-i-restart-embedded-broker.html, it's better (more reliable) to instantiate the broker again instead of reuse old broker. So if I restart embeded broker, there will be 1 more BrokerService in memory. I think it's memory leak.
> Memory Leak after shutdown embeded broker with JDBC persistence
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMQ-5447
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5447
> Project: ActiveMQ
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Broker, Message Store
> Affects Versions: 5.10.0
> Environment: Windows7, JDK7
> Reporter: Shi Lei
> Original Estimate: 2h
> Remaining Estimate: 2h
>
> After shutdown embeded activemq broker with JDBC store, 2 'ActiveMQ JDBC PA Scheduled Task' is still alive.
> Because the 2 thread's Thread factory is object of JDBCPersistenceAdapter's inner class, so the object of JDBCPersistenceAdapter can be reached from the 2 threads, JDBCPersistenceAdapter has a field point to BrokerService. So the instance of BrokerService can be reached from the 2 threads.
> So the stopped brokerService cannot be GC.
> The root cause is that when stopping JDBCPersistenceAdapter, only cancelling cleanupTicket without shutdown clockDaemon, that's why the 2 threads are still alive.
> According to http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-i-restart-embedded-broker.html, it's better (more reliable) to instantiate the broker again instead of reuse old broker. So if I restart embeded broker, there will be 1 more BrokerService in memory. I think it's memory leak.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)