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 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:57:06 GMT
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?


Joe Fernandez wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Davies []
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM
>> To:
>> 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
> Joe
>> cheers,
>> Rob
>> -Enterprise Open Integration

View raw message