Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5009E200B84 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:53:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 4E9C6160AC9; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:53:33 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 8862C160AA9 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:53:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 93222 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2016 12:53:31 -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 93210 invoked by uid 99); 20 Sep 2016 12:53:31 -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, 20 Sep 2016 12:53:31 +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 E53A61A0275 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:53:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.926 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.926 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=0.064] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx2-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odpJ-26Gn0DO for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:53:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com (mail-vk0-f48.google.com [209.85.213.48]) by mx2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id B9BF65F1EC for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:53:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id o139so25283412vka.1 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:53:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=CoKnE2A3INy1s9Fz+pp5GZxeL5UzhpGa8sf1/9WE390=; b=TNpU4EQ56Y/J/3GlxfdZf1K3edjHw7hpU433d0lWHsBbDoEUBxwaTLqaRA4T9x2P91 A3MFfcirNyxSf3emF9EkqHc3GDtUjLOQ0oRFIS4vDBThpkjDjBrbvG3VMtcXLQemGL7r Aqp6J208GapRnPieg9J3IG/fFlOqZDp56MGnpy8vKP5bl+3jOGmIUI6lAwYmkNWBzM/0 2h7mlmeDKhH7YHvCFdUEUibrL9K6p15AAEm/fKC4vCKgjGOE/HvPOwm5wapwn4bolpHG um09mpvFdttuLxfjuOtsCXd5QX8/MWWkdziunDWoNpPfjVjwPWQV1Nd5S4VCUdIYtNXb 59lw== 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:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CoKnE2A3INy1s9Fz+pp5GZxeL5UzhpGa8sf1/9WE390=; b=VSmrVKfFLo+dnOo9RcF7+p+lvvQMBQJoq0X/QZ91TquO4v8qQemBiwFmRMDwYOTR5t nHObCLilUsq66uvGk8dh8xDkb0E/ImUJD26xKdDN9xyzEY9R+HR85nRbpzQyUADBodTF w9qqTqeyGlx8TLBCNlLtqlS4mlYYjGxy5xAxGWBiQdfEVyIT1OQ3w5AiRfVTnecLcphS mKg9woLcTKIvoN2G/qweIQXTmSmrRIxA4aObfh8aymmrDUk90sMBtt8lkkRl9XS4HYLn MmFfvbOnT8jpRPtbV1HMqmrGRFFTmRrpcTXeUBg3sc4zhT0ONWz4JyR2jcxR1+NlCY3h HPdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNpexGxIrdUXPrzxTR92/vj7T44kd0LhJpdrsrFiqY0EZoXZ07p6dVj++apFo4MhgpFERRT/ucjd+jsng== X-Received: by 10.31.161.85 with SMTP id k82mr4061560vke.136.1474376008153; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:53:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: tbain98@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.110.65 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.110.65 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:53:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1474327462187-4716642.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1472687653612-4716047.post@n4.nabble.com> <1474327462187-4716642.post@n4.nabble.com> From: Tim Bain Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:53:27 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EiWtyEDY7KSNlQmMsH3bGMex-oE Message-ID: Subject: Re: JMS exception during the Failover To: ActiveMQ Users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143e50c3b3fa1053cefea80 archived-at: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:53:33 -0000 --001a1143e50c3b3fa1053cefea80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Am I right in understanding that you're no longer having the problem from your first email, and the problem from yesterday is the only one? When you stop the broker, how are you stopping it? If you're doing kill -9, that doesn't gracefully shut down the TCP connections, so the behavior can be different than if you issue a stop at the command prompt. It should still work eventually (and since it's not working for you, then it's either a bug in our code or a bug in yours), but be aware that the clean shutdown case will be faster than the hard kill case, so don't expect identical behavior between the two cases. Can you post your consumer configuration/code so we can see if there is something obvious that might explain what you're seeing? Also, it sounds like you took a thread dump when this was happening; are you able to post it? Also, is this consistently reproducible? And what happens if you start A and stop B once you're in this state? Tim On Sep 19, 2016 6:25 PM, "akhil" wrote: > Hi , I am having the same type of issue but with the different > configuration. > I have two brokers which are not in network but i am using producer and > consumer with two different threads in my local and trying to hit 10k > messages and consume it from second thread. I am using the shared file > storage mount for the kaha db mount.One of the broker is acting as a master > any any point of time and the other one is slave. I have started my test > with Broker A as master and producer is sending out messages and consumer > started listening to it.. to add the complexity i have turned of the Broker > A and the lock got acquired by Broker B and it is now new master. Producer > got reconnected to master but consumer is failing and invoked the > inactivity > monitor and i have observed the TIME_WAIT thread block of connection broker > of consumer thread and it never ever reconnected to the new master ? > > Producer no issues in regards to the reconnection in failover scenario but > consumer does ..any one any suggestions ..is it something real bug with a > race condition or some thing we need to put it in the consumer code to > avoid > this failure ? > > Thanks, > Akhil. > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/JMS-exception-during-the-Failover-tp4716047p4716642.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > --001a1143e50c3b3fa1053cefea80--