activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <>
Subject Re: Consumers not always being released
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:20:42 GMT

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


Rob -Enterprise Open Integration

View raw message