activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hiram Chirino <chir...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Setting a Master broker in a MasterSlave configuration
Date Sat, 06 Jul 2013 00:15:47 GMT
FYI: in 5.9 the broker should handle auto restarting in that scenario. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 5, 2013, at 11:08 AM, hbakkum <hayden.bakkum@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right, so I've tried to reproduce the issue again, but now the process does
> indeed stop... perhaps I was imagining things :P 
> 
> However it still does not restart as I'd like. But if I'm interpreting your
> previous comment correctly I could achieve this by creating a custom Locker
> which wraps and delegates to the /DataBaseLeaseLocker/ and throws an
> /IOException/ if /DataBaseLeaseLocker#keepAlive()/ returns false. And if I
> have the following config in activemq.xml then it should then restart the
> broker:
> 
> <bean id="ioExceptionHandler"
> class="org.apache.activemq.util.DefaultIOExceptionHandler">
>        <property name="stopStartConnectors"><value>true</value></property>
> </bean>
> 
> Does this seem like a reasonable approach?
> 
> 
> 
> gtully wrote
>> the idea is that it will stop and restart and on a restart become a slave
>> again.
>> 
>> What is keeping the java process up? Can you post a stack trace.
>> 
>> We have the logic in the jdbcIoExceptionHandler to stopConnectors and
>> restart when the lock can be required, but this kicks in when
>> keepAlive gets an exception, because the db has been restarted for
>> example.
>> It may make sense to have this sort of failure option on keepAlive as
>> an option. So rather than fail with false (shutdown)
>> it can fail with an exception so that the IOException handler kicks in.
>> 
>> But for now, the question is  what is keeping the java process alive?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4 July 2013 17:51, hbakkum &lt;
> 
>> hayden.bakkum@
> 
>> &gt; wrote:
>>> Thanks for this. I've managed to configure the database lease locker such
>>> that the master will reclaim the lock if it is held by a slave. However,
>>> I've encountered another issue while testing failover scenarios, that is,
>>> if
>>> a slave yields the lock due to the master starting then the slave broker
>>> shuts down. What's odd here is that while the broker shuts down the java
>>> process is still running. In this situation I would have expected (well,
>>> at
>>> least preferred :P) the slave to yield the lock, stop its transport
>>> connectors and then continue its polling task to obtain the lock in the
>>> event of another master failure.
>>> 
>>> I've taken a look at the /Locker/ interface, in particular the
>>> /keepAlive()/
>>> method. The javadoc states that if this method returns false, then the
>>> broker will indeed terminate, so unfortunately, it looks like a custom
>>> /Locker/ implementation won't help me here either.
>>> 
>>> Is there something I'm missing or any way of changing the broker
>>> behaviour
>>> when the lock is lost?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hayden.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Setting-a-Master-broker-in-a-MasterSlave-configuration-tp4668815p4668884.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://redhat.com
>> http://blog.garytully.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Setting-a-Master-broker-in-a-MasterSlave-configuration-tp4668815p4668928.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message