thanks for replying.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/11/7 Matthias Radestock <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:matthias@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">matthias@rabbitmq.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 07/11/12 13:30, 陈宇剑 wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
i check out that &nbsp;i use the rabbitmq 2.8.6.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Hmm, that should be fine.<br>
<br>
However, ...<br>
<br>
note that any &#39;mandatory&#39;/&#39;immediate&#39; messages that cannot be routed/delivered are *returned to the sender*. If the sender is not draining those messages from the socket then they could easily pile up at the server, causing memory usage to creep up.<br>
</blockquote><div><br><br>i will make some tests. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
As Simon said, &#39;immediate&#39; is going away, so I recommend that you replace it with a per-queue message ttl (<a href="http://www.rabbitmq.com/ttl.html#per-queue-message-ttl" target="_blank">http://www.rabbitmq.com/ttl.<u></u>html#per-queue-message-ttl</a>) of 0, as previously suggested. Messages discarded that way will simply get dropped rather than returned.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>and thank you for your advice, <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Matthias.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>南京大学 软件学院 陈宇剑<br>