I wrote some nagios plugins:
Basic alive test that sends a message and waits for a reply:
https://github.com/ripienaar/monitoring-scripts/blob/master/activemq/check_activemq.rb
Queue size and so check:
https://github.com/ripienaar/monitoring-scripts/blob/master/activemq/check_activemq_que
- Original Message -
> From: "Mohit Anchlia"
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:58:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Sync between 2 queues accross DC
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Dejan Bosanac
> wrote:
>
> > Network connector acts as a regular consumer, the mes
- Original Message -
> Hm, yeah that sounds broken. It's maybe related to the fact there is
> a Stomp in the mix. Can you raise an issue for this (as much details as
> you have) and I'll try to reproduce it.
>
thanks, I'll try to create a set of configs that can reproduce and then open
> Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb
> -
> The experts in open source integration and messaging -
> http://fusesource.com
> ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:23 PM, R.I.Pienaar
{}
},
"operationType": 1,
"timeout": 0
}}
My brokers are a->b->c so I have a TTL of 2 on the network connections.
Can anyone provide any hints on what I might do to improve the situation with
temp queues or topics on networks of brokers?
thanks!
--
R.I.Pienaar
d just using the suspend feature
to stop the one dead in its tracks, without setting wait_timeout failover
doesnt happen. With setting it to 60 failover happens in ~ 60 seconds.
hth
--
R.I.Pienaar
- Original Message -
> How did you simulate such error?
> I have tested JDBC master/slave in the past and killed -9 the master.
> The lock on the database was released immediately and so the slave
> was able to take over.
>
> Have never simulated a kernel panic though.
> Do you use a def
never happened. Is there some tunable setting or advice you can give
on
improving this setup to be better resilient to failure of this nature?
--
R.I.Pienaar
