activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Fogarty <Christopher.Foga...@Versiant.com>
Subject Re: Testing Master Slave on Shared File System
Date Thu, 28 Apr 2016 20:14:27 GMT
I have the disk a part of its on vggroup and an lv carved out of that with ext 4 file system
on it. This is mounted on both systems and I am able to start active mq fine. But would feel
a lot better validating that only one of the two nodes actually has a lock. I would love even
more to verify that both nodes when started are doing what they should, which is one has a
locked access and the other is in a sort of stand by until the lock is released.

Hope this makes sense.

Chris Fogarty





On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:37 PM -0700, "Matt Pavlovich" <mattrpav@gmail.com<mailto:mattrpav@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Chris-

What file system are you using to share the mount?  The filesystem would
need to support distributed locking (many "shareable filesystems" don't
do this properly.

The other approach is to use the shared filesystem for KahaDB and a
database lease-locker to work around the
most-shared-filesystems-don't-do-locking-properly problem.

-Matt

On 4/28/16 12:34 PM, Christopher Fogarty wrote:
> I have set up two servers:
>
> Both CENTOS with a shared SAN disk mounted and active on both nodes.
>
> I have set up ActiveMQ 5.6
>
> I am able to start each with the following configuration
>
> <persistenceAdapter>
>    <kahaDB directory="/sharedFileSystem/sharedBrokerData"/>
> </persistenceAdapter>
>
> Each node can and does start, but how can I test, or what do I look for to make sure
that file locking is actually working as described in the http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
document.  Before putting this into production, I would feel a lot better knowing that only
one of the two nodes is capable of accessing the kahadb.
>
>
> Chris Fogarty
>
> VP, System Engineering
> Versiant Corporation
> 3700 Arco Corporate Drive
> Suite 350
> Charlotte, NC 28273
> Office: (704) 831-3905 | Mobile: (704) 763-3333
>
> Chris.Fogarty@Versiant.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Fogarty
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:02 AM
> To: 'users@activemq.apache.org' <users@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Running ActiveMQ Broker as different username unable to connect via web
admin console
>
> What Platform? Do you have a firewall running
>
> Chris Fogarty
>
> VP, System Engineering
> Versiant Corporation
> 3700 Arco Corporate Drive
> Suite 350
> Charlotte, NC 28273
> Office: (704) 831-3905 | Mobile: (704) 763-3333
>
> Chris.Fogarty@Versiant.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jboss [mailto:jboss@bcidaho.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:16 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Running ActiveMQ Broker as different username unable to connect via web
admin console
>
> The web console does not come up at all.   The error that the Chrome gives is
> "Connection Refused".  Does not even get to the point of asking for username/password.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Running-ActiveMQ-Broker-as-different-username-unable-to-connect-via-web-admin-console-tp4711175p4711280.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message