activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Rodriguez <>
Subject Re: Consumers not always being released
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:55:27 GMT

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?


View raw message