Re: AMQ 4.1.2, FailoverTransport and Firewall

Awesome! I take it no one has seen this problem. Rob Rob Bugh wrote: > > We have this configuration: > - AMQ 4.1.2 > - Client outside of a firewall. Uses FailoverTransport to connect to > brokers. > - Two brokers inside of firewall in master/slave configuration > >

AMQ 4.1.2, FailoverTransport and Firewall

We have this configuration: - AMQ 4.1.2 - Client outside of a firewall. Uses FailoverTransport to connect to brokers. - Two brokers inside of firewall in master/slave configuration Problem: Upon startup, if the client attempts to connect to the slave broker instead of the master broker, the firew

JDBC Master/Slave Failover Behavior

Can someone point me to where the the behavior of the JDBC Master/Slave topology is explained, specifically with respect to how transactions are managed during failover? I thought that uncommitted transactions would seamlessly failover to the slave but I'm seeing behavior that suggests this is no

Re: Transaction State

Forgot to mention the test was run on ActiveMQ v4.1.1 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Transaction-State-tp16968998s2354p17028108.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Transaction State

I've created a test case that shows failover does not work for transacted sessions on a JDBC Master/Slave topology. By this I mean when the slave becomes the new master on failover, previously running transactions are not respected by the new master. This leads to the situation where a message can

Re: Transaction State

rajdavies wrote: > > > Transactional state is replayed from the client - so the new master > will remove the message from the store > > Is there a window of opportunity during the failover where some other client could retrieve the message before the first client commits the transaction?

Transaction State

In a JDBC Master/Slave topology with durable queues if the master fails does the slave pick up the transactions of the master? In other works, if a consumer opens a session against the master, consumes a message, but doesn't commit the transaction and the master dies, does the slave (who is now t

Re: Uncommitted transactions during master/slave failover?

Is there a way to make ActiveMQ persist the transaction state into the DB so the slave can pick up where the master left off with regards to transactions started by not yet committed/rolledback/closed? Rob Bugh wrote: > > What happends to uncommitted transactions during master/slave fa

Uncommitted transactions during master/slave failover?

What happends to uncommitted transactions during master/slave failover? I've configured two brokers as a JDBC Master and Slave. My client app retrieves a message from a queue on the master, processes the message then commits the transaction to permanently remove it from the queue. The problem I'

Re: Scheduled Failover

Done. See AMQ-1660 rajdavies wrote: > > > That sounds like a nice enhancement ! - could you raise a jira ? > > cheers, > > Rob > > http://open.iona.com/ -Enterprise Open Integration > http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Scheduled-Fa

Scheduled Failover

I am using a JDBC Master/Slave topology. I'm using Postgres as the db and noticed that due to the long running transaction of the master holding the lock on the activemq_lock table my vacuums are not very effective. If you are familiar with posgres then you know that vacuum can only recover dead t

Using wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration Option

Can someone describe the use case for when you would set the wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration=0 parameter on the broker transport, e.g., versus on the consumer/producer, e.g., ActiveMQConnectionFactory connectionFactory = new ActiveMQConnectionFactory("failover:(tcp://brokerhost:61616)?wi

How to determine message location in a queue

What is the best way to determine (to the extent that this makes sense) a message's position in a queue? Assuming messages represents a long running tasks and so the queue is depleted at a rather slow pace and the messages are removed from the queue in the same order as they are added, I would l

Re: Topology Question

ntion previously that the number of datacenters may grow in the future so it would be nice if the solution required a minimum of changes to add a new datacenter. Regards, Rob James.Strachan wrote: > > On 2/15/07, Rob Bugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hello All, &g

Topology Question

Hello All, Is this the forum to ask How-To questons with regards to deploying ActiveMQ in a given topology? I'm new to ActiveMQ and could use a bit of advice. If this kind of question should be posted elsewhere, my apologies, please point me there. My topology -- In a nutshell, I h