activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Moquin <fragility...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Failover in 5.2.0
Date Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:00:44 GMT
That would be fine.. I just want to reestablish the connection if it gets
dropped (it seems like there are constant network hiccups that cause my
connection to get lost).  I don't want to lose the connection from
innactivity either though.  Will it still block if I use the NIO transport?
Or can I not wrap the NIO transport with the failover transport?

Thanks for your help.

Ryan

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you are in the same VM, then use the
> vm:<http://activemq.apache.org/how-should-i-use-the-vm-transport.html
> >scheme
> as this will be a lot faster as there is no marshaling overhead.
>
> I guess it is worth investigating what is causing your connections to get
> dropped. Is it inactivity timeout or network issues?
>
> With failover, network or connection drop issues will be hidden from your
> application as the transport will block while it reconnects.
> There may be situations where you want such issues to filter up to your
> application to deal with them there, in which case failover: should be
> avoided or configured to fail after a low number of retries.
>
> but it is no harm to use it with a single broker, just be aware that by
> default it will block with some incremental backoff. check out the
> reference
> page for details.
>
> 2009/3/13 Ryan Moquin <fragility2.0@gmail.com>
>
> > Ahhhhhh ok.. that explains a lot... Too bad I didn't ask this question a
> > lot
> > sooner since I've been very confused over the last week on why updates
> > seemed to stop unexpectedly when they never used to.  On the same note,
> > should I use failover even for interVM connections?  Such as my
> servicemix
> > services?  Are there any times it's safe not to use the failover
> transport?
> > Or should it always be used unless you have a specific reason you
> wouldn't
> > want it to connect?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > you still need to use the failover: scheme in 5.2 when you provide a
> url
> > > and
> > > want failover.
> > > The change only effects users who do not provide a brokerUrl to the
> > > ActiveMQConnectionFactory.
> > > That is the only case where the defaultUrl is used.
> > >
> > > 2009/3/13 Ryan Moquin <fragility2.0@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I've been using ActivbeMQ 5.2 for a while now and am having a problem
> > > where
> > > > my topic subscribers seem to lose their connections to the ActiveMQ
> > > broker
> > > > after around 1,000 messages (it seems like they consistently lose
> their
> > > > connection at just over 1,000 messages).  My publishers (SOA services
> > in
> > > > Servicemix) and my consumers (in a separate VM) are on the same
> > machine.
> > >  I
> > > > can tell my consumers are losing their connections by looking at the
> > > > activemq web console, I can see the connections will just go away
> while
> > > my
> > > > publishers keep sending.  I don't see any error anywhere on my
> consumer
> > > > side
> > > > indicating why the connections were dropped.  Now, assuming some
> weird
> > > > network issue (even though they are on the same machine, it seems
> that
> > > > network issues will affect local connections) is causing my client to
> > > drop,
> > > > I thought that ActiveMQ 5.2.0 used failover by default when you use a
> > URL
> > > > such as:
> > > >
> > > > tcp://localhost:61616
> > > >
> > > > Since according to the release page it says:
> > > >
> > > > "The default ActiveMQConnectionFactory<
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://activemq.apache.org/maven/activemq-core/apidocs/org/apache/activemq/ActiveMQConnectionFactory.html
> > > > >brokerUrl
> > > > now uses the failover
> > > > transport <
> > http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
> > > >."
> > > >
> > > > Am I mistaken on that?  Or do I still need to use the failover URL?
>  Is
> > > it
> > > > common for a consumer to lose a connection like this and using a
> > failover
> > > > URL is all I need to put back in?  I never saw this problem when
> using
> > > > earlier versions of ActiveMQ with failover.  Since I moved to 5.2, I
> > > > removed
> > > > the failover part of the URL because I thought 5.2 used it by
> default.
> > >  Any
> > > > clarification on this would be helpful, or even a suggestion on how
> to
> > > > troubleshoot the issue.  It seems like the only way I might be able
> to
> > > get
> > > > some log output to help with the problem is by turning on debug mode?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for any help!
> > > >
> > > > Ryan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://blog.garytully.com
> > >
> > > Open Source SOA
> > > http://FUSESource.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://blog.garytully.com
>
> Open Source SOA
> http://FUSESource.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message