Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65909 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2010 19:26:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2010 19:26:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 81245 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jul 2010 19:26:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 81197 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jul 2010 19:26:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 81189 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jul 2010 19:26:15 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:26:15 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:26:09 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ObIRo-0006cm-Mn for users@activemq.apache.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:25:48 -0700 Message-ID: <29216328.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:25:48 -0700 (PDT) From: ejosterberg To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Noob Questions - Fail-over / Redundancy Help. In-Reply-To: <29090904.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: eosterberg@l1id.com References: <29057308.post@talk.nabble.com> <29066738.post@talk.nabble.com> <29090284.post@talk.nabble.com> <29090904.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org In the last case, what was done is that the network was disconnected from the active node until Oracle timed out the connection and the lock was released. Once the network was reconnected, the failed node began processing with the new node in parallel. I'm only reporting what was shared with me. I'm not certain of what was seen. I'm looking for advice from anyone who is comfortable that they have a HA solution that is working for them and asking what method they used. ================== Now what about the last scenario. How was ActiveMQ shut down? How did was is restarted? How did you test that the restarted instance was actually processing messages? -Clark Our problem with using Oracle was that if the Active or Hot instance were to become disconnected and with the changes made to Oracle to timeout the connection and therefore release the lock on the database were to succeed, we would indeed have a secondary or standby instance begin processing and all is well until the previous instance again returns to the network and what we are finding is that it will again create a session with Oracle and will begin processing in parallel without attempting to gain a lock on the DB. Now we have a problem of two instances of ActiveMQ are running. Any advice on the best method? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Noob-Questions---Fail-over---Redundancy-Help.-tp29057308p29216328.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.