activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "metatech (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (AMQ-4122) Lease Database Locker failover broken
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:06:44 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

metatech updated AMQ-4122:
--------------------------

    Attachment: amq_dual_master_5.7_backport.patch

For those using ServiceMix 4.5, the file "amq_dual_master_5.7_backport.patch" provides a backport
for ActiveMQ 5.7. 

> Lease Database Locker failover broken
> -------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: AMQ-4122
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4122
>             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: AMQ4122.patch, activemq-kyle.xml, activemq.xml, activemq.xml, amq_dual_master_5.7_backport.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 was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Mime
View raw message