activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ttmdev <joe.fernan...@ttmsolutions.com>
Subject Re: Consumers not always being released
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:13:24 GMT

I'm testing out a patch. If all goes well, I'll submit it in the next day or
so...

Joe
Goto www.ttmsolutions.com for a free ActiveMQ user guide



toxicafunk wrote:
> 
> This seems to be exactly the problem. I will try the shared master/slave 
> configuration but is this bug fixable and if so when will a fix be ready?
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric
> 
> Joe Fernandez wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob Davies [mailto:rajdavies@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM
>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Consumers not always being released
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Mar 2008, at 19:55, Eric Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Miljour wrote:
>>>>> After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration
>>>>> issue,
>>>>> which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might
>>>>> have
>>>>> helped if i had included my configuration as well!)  We had set the
>>>>> value
>>>>> for broker name differently in our two running instances of
>>>>> ActiveMQ.  Doing
>>>>> this caused the ActiveMQs to act as though they were load balancing
>>>>> instead
>>>>> of acting as Master and slave (which was our intent).  Suggested
>>>>> documentation changes:In the schema reference for brokerName,
>>>>> change the description from: Sets the name of this broker; which
>>>>> must be
>>>>> unique in the network
>>>>> to:
>>>>> Sets the name of this broker; which must be unique in the network,
>>>>> except
>>>>> for master-slave configurations, where it must be the same
>>>>> Also, in the master slave shared file system documentation, include
>>>>> a note
>>>>> stating that the WebConsole will not load for the slave until it
>>>>> becomes the
>>>>> master if the setup is done correctly.  Also mention that the value
>>>>> for
>>>>> brokerName must be the same for the master and all slaves.
>>>> What does "if the setup is done correctly" means? Documentation
>>>> states:
>>>>
>>>> "Whilst a Slave is actively connected to the Master - it does not
>>>> allow or start any network or transport connectors, it's sole
>>>> purpose is to duplicate the state of the master."
>>>>
>>>> I am using the same name on both master and slave, if I try to
>>>> consume from the slave while the master is active it doesn't consume
>>>> messages, which is good. But if I produce against the Slave it
>>>> accepts messages, it doesn't rely them to the consumers but it does
>>>> accepts them.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with this is if there were a network problem and a
>>>> producer connects to a Slave while the master is active, while the
>>>> failover transport has some properties such as maxReconnectAttempts,
>>>> maxReconnectDelay, etc. they seem to have effect if both Master and
>>>> Slave fail (I'm referring to a Pure Master-Slave conf). Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Thx,
>>>> Eric
>>> That's odd - a Salve doesn't start its transport connectors until the
>>> master dies
>> 
>> With a 'shared' master/slave configuration, the slave runs as documented
>> (i.e., keeps its transports closed while connected to the master).
>> However,
>> in a 'pure' master/slave configuration, the slave opens its transports
>> and
>> accepts connection requests while connected to the master. See the
>> following
>> JIRA.
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1511
>>  
>> Joe
>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> http://open.iona.com/ -Enterprise Open Integration
>>> http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
>>>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Consumers-not-always-being-released-tp15818936s2354p16025545.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message