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 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:41:50 GMT
That'll be great.


ttmdev wrote:
> I'm testing out a patch. If all goes well, I'll submit it in the next day or
> so...
> Joe
> Goto 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 []
>>>> 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
>>> JIRA.
>>> Joe
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Rob
>>>> -Enterprise Open Integration

View raw message