activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Carlson <>
Subject Re: Failover causes duplicate messages
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:31:55 GMT
Hi Gary,

Thanks for the explanation. The order is:

     consumer retrieves message

     connection is lost and consumer re-establishes connection to new 
master broker

     consumer acks the message retrieved from the former broker

     consumer retrieves the same message it just ack'ed.

I guess the question is ... is there a way for the new broker on 
failover to recognize the consumers that have retrieved message but not 
ack'ed messages and behave exactly as if they were retrieved from itself 
(not redispatch unless the connection to the consumer is lost)? I 
suppose that would require some heuristics to determine how long to wait 
before those original consumers reconnect.



On 02/24/2010 04:16 PM, Gary Tully wrote:
> On failover, redispatch of unacked messages will occur and this is 
> unordered. There is no guarantee that the same consumer will get the 
> same messages after failover of a connection.
> On the java client there is a message audit that will suppress 
> duplicates that may occur, I think the same is true for the CPP 
> client, but this will not be true for STOMP clients.
> What is odd is that you say that messages that have been acked are 
> replayed. This should only occur if the ack did not actually get to 
> the broker.
> If previously acked messages are getting replayed there is something 
> wrong.
> On 24 February 2010 19:02, Josh Carlson < 
> <>> wrote:
>     When using a shared file system master/server activemq
>     configuration and client acknoledgements we run into a problem when
>     our clients fail over to a new server. The problem is that the new
>     server does not appear to have any knowledge of pending
>     messages that the old server had dispatched to clients.
>     Consequently all of these pending messages get dispatched a second
>     time even though the clients had acknowledged them.
>     I've filed this as a bug here:
>     which contains a reproducer using activemq-cpp. I'm posting here
>     in the hopes that someone can confirm that they believe this
>     something that is suppose to be supported and/or if anyone knows
>     of any possible work arounds.
>     Any advice is appreciated.
> -- 
> Open Source Integration

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