Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17962188A9 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 3547 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2016 15:56:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 3503 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2016 15:56:33 -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 3490 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2016 15:56:32 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:56:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 896441A10F0 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:56:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.93 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.93 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.068] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m8FbOAs7ImpR for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 8DABC5FBC4 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g203so226885277iof.2 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 07:56:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to; bh=vNhaXBPsWs6sWMX4Nwfp/QD0KfTku+nqDsTa/wG0Qpw=; b=YKdAd/qNrCLH2pCfITZJMPp+3SBwKILqB7m+Ig/4FSFcK7LqvBI1eXxRLyxMdNw1Bn 4kHPqveKhejmJTY2/9o+Yg1uj0fe9KSVhcjXKb69hZArlr+CECVTI6T8mVRFzqtus2vs tKu18bKcDhiUQ7gME+BqGqhSj8JKQc6BZjWxewerVZqN/sqDlzgi3haTW4RmR0t90QXq 1mFqw6yvmc72jZGbr1Bol3uwkpdvx+C3OalP2eD5GlB95w1p3P4B+TxR/0BuiMztI1/I NxI9y+KOQfRRLuCHIbqucZoUymv1tWutt5+2iALZoQpYCM3lqAX81kXbMyIfwyUp18qw bbDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=vNhaXBPsWs6sWMX4Nwfp/QD0KfTku+nqDsTa/wG0Qpw=; b=XtSmgiletqQaMprn2rNZ1BBNdbJIGG7A8GflT9MfZqFm5zS9A/GKS7pCawIJyBLmvW YmHQgiZga4MceZEpz41g8cA1INc2cg2njuVoVAUgvqwCEK3I9N1u9qnvjQh4HddK9sOi NZ1PRDGGz8bL1a1mxfW8B9mS2QfCL6vNj90RkeqRr1di47sKTp+Iyekd6SsJ5K7tQEra bns5KXfkw0FgrKNlXGN57dNE+AaqBgj93QlFlI3kXsZLzaq48sxituiAZ1s/TPl2MNJs MA4wvQiQdUmu9ogUoSjhXKh9WOX69+us577I15JZJxQ4Tq1GqKY50QbovQCPC9NrTi/Z 8sfA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTztXkeR9K6pCFyKQBKwNQlDGZkcPhJfjH4KBprcki2kyNxz0TLDDDOjNvYbYfQ8+b14Jj644PHGECzAA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.129.228 with SMTP id l97mr25143757ioi.76.1456846888491; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) Sender: tbain98@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.246.33 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.246.33 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1456844527102-4708644.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1456458925753-4708431.post@n4.nabble.com> <1456720988525-4708565.post@n4.nabble.com> <1456801705199-4708618.post@n4.nabble.com> <1456844527102-4708644.post@n4.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:41:28 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0gzRBQ9C0hiIRam8DspFm4A4cZg Message-ID: Subject: Re: question for users of NFS master/slave setups From: Tim Bain To: ActiveMQ Users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f912447dff9052cfe99ac --001a113f912447dff9052cfe99ac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Another possibility: the paths that each broker uses to reach the lock file don't resolve to the same file in NFS. On Mar 1, 2016 8:29 AM, "artnaseef" wrote: > So something is very wrong then. NFS should *not* allow two NFS clients to > obtain the same lock. > > Three possible explanations come to mind: > > * The lock file is getting incorrectly removed (I've never seen ActiveMQ > cause this) > * There is a flaw in the NFS locking implementation itself > * The NFSv4 timeout for the lock is overly aggressive (perhaps less than 1 > second even? The timeout needs to be at least a couple of minutes in most > scenarios to be reliable) > > If the servers are Linux servers, try using strace to see their > interactions > with the lock file. > > BTW, each broker is running on its own dedicated server, right? > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/question-for-users-of-NFS-master-slave-setups-tp4708204p4708644.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > --001a113f912447dff9052cfe99ac--