activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joe Fernandez" <joe.fernan...@ttmsolutions.com>
Subject RE: Consumers not always being released
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:09:20 GMT



> -----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/
> 



Mime
View raw message