activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kyle Miller (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (AMQ-4122) Lease Database Locker failover broken
Date Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:36:12 GMT


Kyle Miller commented on AMQ-4122:

We are seeing a similar issue.  After debugging, I've found some odd behavior. 

When the LockableServiceSupport class gets a "false" back from the LeaseDatabaseBaseLocker.keepAlive()
method, it calls LockableServiceSupport.stopBroker().

On line 132 of LockableServiceSupport: + ", no longer able to keep the exclusive lock so giving
up being a master");

This fails for me with a NullPointerException, which kills the thread, but does not stop the

It turns out, there is an variable (brokerService)
that is null.  However, there is also a org.apache.activemq.xbean.XBeanBrokerService variable
(brokerService) that is not null.  This is odd.

I'm guessing that I have a problem with my configuration.  I will be posting mine as well.
> Lease Database Locker failover broken
> -------------------------------------
>                 Key: AMQ-4122
>                 URL:
>             Project: ActiveMQ
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 5.7.0
>         Environment: Java 7u9, SUSE 11, Mysql
>            Reporter: st.h
>            Assignee: Gary Tully
>         Attachments: activemq.xml, activemq.xml
> We are using ActiveMQ 5.7.0 together with a mysql database and could not observe correct
failover behavior with lease database locker.
> It seems that there is a race condition, which prevents the correct failover procedure.
> We noticed that when starting up two instances, both instance are becoming master.
> We did several test, including the following and could not observe intended functionality:
> - shutdown all instances
> - manipulate database lock that one node has lock and set expiry time in distance future
> - start up both instances. both instances are unable to acquire lock, as the lock hasn't
expired, which should be correct behavior.
> - update the expiry time in database, so that the lock is expired.
> - first instance notices expired lock and becomes master
> - when second instance checks for lock, it also updates the database and becomes master.
> To my understanding the second instance should not be able to update the lock, as it
is held by the first instance and should not be able to become master.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message