Re: Strange behavior with unregistering MBeans

Hi, Correction to earlier posting. Actually the exception should have read (*emphasis mine*): jvm 1| Caused by: javax.management.InstanceNotFoundException: org.apache.activemq:type=Broker,brokerName=*darkhorse.onyx.ove.com* ,destinationType=Topic,destinationName=foo.bar jvm 1| at com

Re: Broker cluster on the same machine

yah, try checking this out: http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, pkorwar wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of starting on another machine. > > But, it is ok if only master is up and slave comes up

Re: Broker cluster on the same machine

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of starting on another machine. But, it is ok if only master is up and slave comes up when master dies. So, do you know how to set this configuration up? Thanks Pramod -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nab

Re: AMQ failover using different PCs?

Not sure why shared file system would be "unreliable" in your case. We have hundreds of clients with very stringent reliability and availability requirements that use it. If you don't want them to share a store, your best bet is to achieve what you're looking for is to check out replicated leveldb

Strange behavior with unregistering MBeans

Hi, I've noticed some unexplained behavior when using the web-console in 5.8.0 to delete either topics or queues. This is NOT the infamous CSRF attack question. FYI: the credentials entered when accessing the web-console are the same as those found in jmx.access/jmx.password. Steps to reproduce.

Re: Broker cluster on the same machine

Slave won't start its transports while master is up, so don't need separate ports. You may want to consider having the master/slave on different boxes so that if one goes down, the other can take over. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, pkorwar wrote: > Hi all, > I need to cluster 2 brokers on

Broker cluster on the same machine

Hi all, I need to cluster 2 brokers on the same machine by having them use 2 different ports. Is there documentation on how to do this in master/slave mode? I need only 1 server to be active all the time and if that goes down, the other broker should take over. Also, is there a way to automatically

Re: AMQ failover using different PCs?

I am literally interested in a reliable system: two separate stand-alone PC-s (they can be in the same LAN if needed), all traffic goes trough both (they do not share any resource like database, file system). In a moment master fails, slave takes over. When Master comes up, it will resync and take

Re: Query around ActiveMQ.DLQ

Hi Christian, Correction to what I stated earlier. In this route with "producerWindowSize" set in broker-config.xml MICS There were messages Queued in DLQ and (memory limit has been exceeded or very close to exceeding) The above rout

Re: Connecting to broker slows down

Brokers were slow at the time. Jvm max heap is set at 2048MB, starting the brokers clean memory usage usually starts from 200MB and slowly starts rising as more threads are being used. Usual thread usage will go up to about 300-400 on brokers together. Right now broker b is running 246 threads and

Re: Connecting to broker slows down

Are the brokers sluggish at the moment of those thread dumps? You have 165 connections on broker A, 51 on broker B. Those numbers don't seem too bad. What does the JVM memory look like? What does the network look like between producers/consumers and broker? On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Priit

Re: Connecting to broker slows down

threaddump-2013-05-08---08-27-09_brokerB.txt threaddump-2013-05-08---08-27-15_brokerA.txt Th