Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of chubrilo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.218.225 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=WKtLqcg3jGlxDkJQntcWl1U1gbsqiyUOxrsKxERGKYVC8Fz02mUz2vZUDhT6rfGxVf
         ykrJYbzj6zl/i8t/7n+7R/xKUL8F4FP5JS4DjQoa6ugDGW2FQPYGV6Gt2z5gyZwAqQZ0
         WeiBQjvgTIBBQXvSsbKAQp4vn44tPXZnBJhGs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: chubrilo@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <28244251.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <28233397.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <q2kccabef071004131832hf3ff500fv68d8a0aa70bc5023@mail.gmail.com>
	 <28244251.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:45:07 +0200
Message-ID: <k2q36e91d9d1004140845vb5f34332q85ed7af09e2ebc4c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Running ActiveMQ and having a database failover
From: Dejan Bosanac <dejan@nighttale.net>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f4503e30da0e0484344397

--001485f4503e30da0e0484344397
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

if you're sure that only one broker will use database, you can try
setting useDatabaseLock to false

Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:31 PM, icfantv <adam.gordon@readytalk.com> wrote:

>
> That's a neat idea, but unfortunately for us it does not appear that
> Postgresql supports a failover parameter in the connection URL.
> Additionally, even if it did, it would depend on how it handled the
> failover
> so as to not cause ActiveMQ to puke.
>
> We use a floating IP address to point to the "primary" database server and
> use HA to failover to the "secondary" (by simply changing to where the
> floating IP address points) if the primary becomes unresponsive.
>
> I'm willing to bet that the problem here is that ActiveMQ uses an open
> transaction to "lock" the table or tables necessary to prevent a failover
> ActiveMQ server from taking over.
>
> If anyone else as any ideas/thoughts/solutions I would appreciate it.
> Thanks.
>
> --adam
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Running-ActiveMQ-and-having-a-database-failover-tp28233397p28244251.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

--001485f4503e30da0e0484344397--