activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <>
Subject Re: Questions about network of brokers with failover
Date Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:21:52 GMT
Hi Peter,

how does your failover URI looks like? Client (producer/consumer)
should only try to reconnect to the urls contained in the failover

Dejan Bosanac -

Open Source Integration -
ActiveMQ in Action -
Blog -

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Pieter C <> wrote:
> Hi ActiveMQ,
> I'm trying to make a setup with four brokers, two on side A and two on side
> B for high availability. So at each side one broker is active, the other one
> is waiting for the kahadb-lock of a shared disk.  In between side A and B
> the brokers connect with failover through SSL.  The producers and consumers
> in side A and B connect via failover through openwire.  Producers, consumers
> and brokers use ActiveMQ 5.4.1
> The happy-path works fine, but because of the network of brokers the
> producer at side A gets informed about the openwire connection at side B (I
> debugged the source and it happens via a BrokerInfo object that is
> transferred to the producer during the startup of the connection).  During a
> failover the producer at side A, who is producing to a failover string,
> suddenly tries (and succeeds) to connect to the openwire port of a broker at
> side B.  This is not the behavior I want, the consumer should only know
> about the connections at side A, not about the SSL connections between A and
> B and the openwire connection at side B.  Is there a way to let the network
> not propagate the topology of the network?  For the borkers and for the
> clients?  This problem could be solved via firewall settings but there must
> be a cleaner way?
> Some smaller questions:
> - What does the parameter trackMessages of the failover uri do exactly?  I
> use this because I thought it was logic that it should be true.  In a
> transactional connection I sometimes lose a complete transaction during
> failover, this happens less with the trackMessages on true.
> - Am I correct in saying that when you use a transactional connection, the
> producer (eg java program) should handle the TransactionRolledBackException
> you get during a failover itself?
> - I think the bug AMQ-2803 still exists in 5.4.1, the zombie messages,
> because after a failover (while sending eg 1000 messages to a queue) the
> pending message size stays one or two (connection is not transactional)
> - Should the producer and consumer use a failover uri?  Or can it just
> contain the two openwire connections?
> I could be wrong, but it’s difficult to get a good grip on the stability of
> this complete failover setup, and that is just what I need, stability!
> Thanks in advance
> Pieter
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

View raw message