Should I still use idleTimeout=0 which ActiveMQ 5.10.0 after the bug fix in ActiveMQ 5.8.0

[xabhi]

There was this bug in ActiveMQ v 5.8.0 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4366) which was worked around by setting idleTimeout to 0 in connection factory. I have upgraded my setup to ActiveMQ 5.10.0.

I am wondering whether to keep this setting or remove it to go back to defaults. What could be the side-effects of setting it to 0? What will be the benefits of reverting back to default 30s?

Thanks,
Abhi

On 01/13/2015 08:04 AM, xabhi wrote:

> There was this bug in ActiveMQ v 5.8.0 (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4366
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4366>  ) which was worked around
> by setting idleTimeout to 0 in connection factory. I have upgraded my setup
> to ActiveMQ 5.10.0.
>
> I am wondering whether to keep this setting or remove it to go back to
> defaults. What could be the side-effects of setting it to 0? What will be
> the benefits of reverting back to default 30s?
>
> Thanks,
> Abhi
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Should-I-still-use-idleTimeout-0-which-ActiveMQ-5-10-0-after-the-bug-fix-in-ActiveMQ-5-8-0-tp4689846.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

There shouldn't be any negative effects going back to the default,
connections that have sat idle for that time period will get cleaned up
so if you want them to linger longer you can extend it.  Leaving it at
zero only means that the pool will retain the open connections for its
lifetime so as long as the max size is sensible it shouldn't present any
real problems.

--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
[hidden email] | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/