Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:05:38 +1100 (NCT)
From: "SuoNayi (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Message-ID: <2120942375.1078.1344848738349.JavaMail.jiratomcat@arcas>
In-Reply-To: 
 <775745807.14851.1325862759810.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (AMQ-3654) JDBC Master/Slave : Slave cannot
 acquire lock when the master loose database connection.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3654?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13433008#comment-13433008 ] 

SuoNayi edited comment on AMQ-3654 at 8/13/12 8:04 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------

For row lock based database locker, I use the same configuration file for all brokers.
This makes deployment job simple really.
LeaseDatabaseLocker need specify the unique lease id, by default it's broker name, 
so does this mean I have to specify different broker name for each one in the cluster?
The last confusion is should lockAcquireSleepInterval be greater than lockKeepAlivePeriod anyway?

                
      was (Author: wangyin):
    For row lock based database locker, I use the same configuration file for all brokers.
This makes deployment job simples really.
LeaseDatabaseLocker need specify the unique lease id, by default it's broker name, 
so does this mean I have to specify different broker name for each one in the cluster?
The last confusion is should lockAcquireSleepInterval be greater than lockKeepAlivePeriod anyway?

                  
> JDBC Master/Slave : Slave cannot acquire lock when the master loose database connection.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: AMQ-3654
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3654
>             Project: ActiveMQ
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 5.5.0
>         Environment: Unix/Redhat 5.6
> ActiveMQ 5.5.0
> Oracle 10G
>            Reporter: Richard Martin
>            Assignee: Gary Tully
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 5.7.0
>
>
> Our configuration is JDBC Master/Slave with one master and one slave. When the master is started, he acquire the database lock.
> Then when the slave is started, he wait to acquire the database lock. When the master loose the network connection to the database, the lock in the database is not removed and the slave connot acquire the database lock. In this situation, the master is unable to respond to client (due to network failure)
> and the slave is not started because he can't acquire the database lock.
> When the master is killed, the slave can't acquire the database lock too. After the network connection is restored, when the master starts, it cannot
> acquire lock to the database (because the lod lock is always present) so now, we have two slaves and no master.
> Please, refer to this issue which is the same problem : AMQ-1958 

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira