Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of toxicafunk@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.204.232 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=mk7UU4uWK1ccgEIwdqEVEBMOafUBiDJE57737vxyUt64mmyllbRW2HbXW8+z80gLCFlwZp0Zp9FVjoZhQAHDXh7dpPT1pdC0TTQ3vCEmrlZNs+Iu4AUrYCQwY9pYBqB9yjBD96s4sKaabuvpKQa/PyAi8q71l0/j1/3c2zm2q/o=
Message-ID: <47DA687A.30103@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:58:50 +0100
From: Eric Rodriguez <toxicafunk@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Consumers not always being released
References: <15818936.post@talk.nabble.com> <15963463.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <47D6E3AF.3070705@gmail.com> <985E9DEE-DBB4-4290-A96A-C9B49A67D4E5@gmail.com>
 <20080311210900.SYMI5710.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@DIEGO>
 <47D7B702.2070001@gmail.com> <16025545.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <47D9756E.9040406@gmail.com> <16039191.post@talk.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <16039191.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Great, I'll try it out and let you know.

Thx,
Eric

ttmdev wrote:
> FYI - patchfile submitted.
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1511
> 
> Joe
> Goto www.ttmsolutions.com for a free ActiveMQ user guide
> 
> 
> 
> toxicafunk wrote:
>> That'll be great.
>>
>> Thx,
>> Eric
>>
>> ttmdev wrote:
>>> I'm testing out a patch. If all goes well, I'll submit it in the next day
>>> or
>>> so...
>>>
>>> Joe
>>> Goto www.ttmsolutions.com 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 [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/
>>>>>>
>>
>