Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
From: Steve Hill <shill@futurelogix.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:07:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Can ActiveMQ take advantage of Oracle transparent application failover?
Message-Id: <63A59EF7-439E-42C6-A9B3-2CC1E811297B@futurelogix.co.uk>
References: <1305559118156-3526485.post@n4.nabble.com> <1493145995364-4725226.post@n4.nabble.com> <CAPVVMa9t_GJV7qboR35T60p-72e6hJ-4LnUO6bhwkx7gVSeA8g@mail.gmail.com> <1493212118045-4725240.post@n4.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <1493212118045-4725240.post@n4.nabble.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
archived-at: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:07:34 -0000

I have not used oracle rac but it sounds like active mq is tied to a single i=
nstance rather than any available oracle server. Have you considered putting=
 a load balancer in front that can determine whether the back end is up and c=
an route requests appropriately?  Not sure if this would work as not had pri=
or experience .

Thanks

> On Apr 26, 2017, at 9:08 AM, "bsmith@skylinenet.net" <bsmith@skylinenet.ne=
t> wrote:
>=20
> Tim,
>=20
> Thanks for the detailed reply. I will share with our app design/developmen=
t
> team for more in-depth discussion and post back with status on any
> workarounds or coding we come up with.=20
>=20
> Also, may consider entering a feature request as you suggested. Agree it m=
ay
> be a bigger update than team wants to tackle but if nothing else it may st=
ir
> some more discussion and brainstorming.
>=20
> I've got to believe someone somewhere has had the same architecture with
> similar problem as follows:  Oracle RAC, Active MQ slave/master - take dow=
n
> one node of the RAC (for maintenance or unexpected problem) and Active MQ
> survives on the remaining node.
>=20
> Just to clarify, I believe the slave broker didn't acquire the lock becaus=
e
> it appears both master and slave were still pointed to the Oracle RAC node=

> that was taken down for maintenance (node 2 was left up and we expected
> Active MQ to connect to the DB though that node.  We=E2=80=99re using an O=
racle SCAN
> Listener - Single Client Access Name).  After we did maintenance, and
> rebooted node 1 of the RAC, the Active MQ was back and live (on that node)=
.=20
> So... may be able to do some scripting and redirecting from the Oracle sid=
e
> when a RAC nodes goes down... we'll see.
>=20
> Again, thanks.  You or anyone else with more suggestions or experiences to=

> share, be glad to hear and keep the thread alive.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> -- bsmith@skylinenet.net
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Can-Ac=
tiveMQ-take-advantage-of-Oracle-transparent-application-failover-tp3526485p4=
725240.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.