Hi,are you using Mysql Cluster?
I think amq can work only when the lease database lock is used.
At 2013-03-28 03:26:08,schweet wrote:
>Hi;
>
>I have master/slave MQ setup with Multi master mesh Mysql back end. With the
>following configurations, the failover works perfectly. Take down any DB
>
yep :) plan is to become fully backward compatible with ActiveMQ 5.x.
no idea when it will be ready. but contributions are always welcome :)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Daniel Guggi wrote:
> hi,
>
> i read through the docs to see the current status of apollo - and it seems
> to support jms
hi,
i read through the docs to see the current status of apollo - and it seems
to support jms via (stopjms and openwire).
are there any plans on support for xa transactions?
tia,
daniel
Steve,
I'm still a bit curious about this one.
The tests I mentioned previously that were failing I have since found a
solution/explanation.
Are you still seeing the issues related to prioritized messages?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Steve.V. wrote:
> Yes, I am using the default kahaDB as
So it seems you have four brokers in your network of brokers: A1, B1, A2,
B2. They are all live (that is, none are part of a master/slave pair where
the slave is idle) with duplex connections like this
A1 <> B1, B1 <> B2, B2 <-> A2, A2 <> A1.
How many messages are "getting lost"? W
thanks for clarification!
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Yin Wang wrote:
> Yes, you can assume that works.
> It seems you want your message flow to be split into two message flows, one
> for
> the lower priority messages while the other for the higher priority
> messages
> and you want they ar
hi,
version: activemq-5.8.0
we don't want client/consumer redelivery, so therefore we have set
maximumRedeliveries=0 on the connectionFactory
(ActiveMQConnectionFactory.java). Simple local (single-instance-broker)
tests verfied that no redelivery was performed.
today we tried a simple failover s
Hi;
I have master/slave MQ setup with Multi master mesh Mysql back end. With the
following configurations, the failover works perfectly. Take down any DB
host that MQ is connected to, it connects to the next available DB host
automatically. No need to restart. Hope it helps:
Forgot to mention, after each minute, there will be another new job
generated on the Broker2 side, so the number
of jobs will grow indefinitely!
Small picture attached.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Bratislav Stojanovic <
bratislav1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have two brokers in my local networ
Can you please raise a JIRA for this? Looks like a bug of some sort
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Jaewoong Choi wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Thanks for the point, with activemq-all-5.9-SNAPSHOT I was able to run my
> test. Bad news it that it's still failing with the same "message missing"
> troubl
Whenever 5.8.1 is released will it include changes to allow for greater
pluggability of the storage lockers, e.g., using a lease-database-locker
with the kahadb persistence adapter?
If not can you say when this might be addressed?
Thanks,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, iamactivemquser wro
> Try a recent 5.9-SNAPSHOT build and this should be resolved.
We´ve also used 5.9-SNAPSHOT, but we had the same problem.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-8-Caching-to-PooledConnectionFactory-replacement-problems-tp4665207p4665210.html
Sent fro
Believe we'll have to backport this to v5.8.1 as well. I'm holding out for
v5.8.1 to upgrade prod clusters from v5.6.0. Thank you.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:52, Timothy Bish wrote:
On 03/27/2013 11:45 AM, iamactivemquser wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We want to upgrade from ActiveMQ 5.5.1 to 5.8.0. We are
On 03/27/2013 11:45 AM, iamactivemquser wrote:
Hi all,
We want to upgrade from ActiveMQ 5.5.1 to 5.8.0. We are using
CachingConnectionFactory, and when we do the upgrade, our integration tests
continue working perfect.
Our configuration is:
Hi all,
We want to upgrade from ActiveMQ 5.5.1 to 5.8.0. We are using
CachingConnectionFactory, and when we do the upgrade, our integration tests
continue working perfect.
Our configuration is:
thanks for your quick answer :)
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-8-1-Release-Date-tp4665189p4665201.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
there is no hard plan, but it will most likely be end or april/early may
before it gets done.
On 27 March 2013 13:01, iamactivemquser wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> anyone knows when is ActiveMQ 5.8.1 planned to be released?
>
> Thanks,
> Ana
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.
Yes, you can assume that works.
It seems you want your message flow to be split into two message flows, one
for
the lower priority messages while the other for the higher priority
messages
and you want they are stuck on two 'exclusive' consumers respectively.
For the sparse selector In one word ,
Yes, you can assume that works.
It seems you want your message flow to be split into two message flows, one for
the lower priority messages while the other for the higher priority messages
and you want they are stuck on two 'exclusive' consumers respectively.
For the sparse selector In one word
Hi all,
anyone knows when is ActiveMQ 5.8.1 planned to be released?
Thanks,
Ana
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-8-1-Release-Date-tp4665189.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
thanks for the test case. The fix is on trunk. U can validate in tonights
5.9-snapshot if you wish.
On 26 March 2013 15:54, Juan Nin wrote:
> Issue has been created, and Unit test attached to it:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4407
>
> Regards.
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM,
I think this is a change in the persistence adapter, we now sync by default
on every send, the jms durability guarantee. Use to get the same behaviour as 5.2. I think 5.2 would only sync on a
transaction boundary.
On 27 March 2013 09:43, Martin Fredriksson wrote:
> I recently upgraded our Activ
Are you using the same ActiveMQ.xml with each version? Can you post the
activemq.xml (s) you're using?
Thanks,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Martin Fredriksson <
ghart.fredriks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recently upgraded our ActiveMQ version from 5.2.0 to 5.8.0 and after that
> we experie
Hi,
We have 2 network-of-brokers with a failover-configuration, but we're having
performance-problems and loosing messages. Clients connect to HostA1 and
HostA2. All brokers run 5.8 stable, only persistent messages using KahaDB:
HostA1:
uri="static:(ssl://HostA2:61616)" duplex=
The syntax for failover URIs is failover:uri1,...,uriN.
How can one specify a composite URI that includes a comma?
For example:
I have this failover URI:
failover:(ssl://127.0.0.1:61616?keepAlive=true&socket.enabledCipherSuites=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,TLS_D
I recently upgraded our ActiveMQ version from 5.2.0 to 5.8.0 and after that
we experience a drop in performance. In particular when sending persisted
messages to a queue.
I have used Apache JMeter to get some benchmark values with a JMS Publisher,
sending 5000 text messages to a queue.
With Active
26 matches
Mail list logo
