activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Tully (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (AMQ-4122) Lease Database Locker failover broken
Date Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:08:13 GMT


Gary Tully commented on AMQ-4122:

@SouNayi  - thanks for the feedback. on {quote}The cause is that LeaseDatabaseLocker always
succeed updating the broker name (the owner of the lease lock) by later lease time in contrast
to the current lease owner.{quote}

Can you make a variant of
that shows the problem? I don't see a problem against derby in the unit test. Note: in the
unit test there is no periodic call to keepalive.
The intent of the update to acquire a lock checks the TIME value against current time and
sets it to obtain the lease. It should (and does) fail if the lease is still valid. ie: the
time is set to a value in the future.
> 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
>             Fix For: 5.8.0
>         Attachments: activemq-kyle.xml, activemq.xml, activemq.xml, AMQ4122.patch, mysql.log
> 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