When I kill the broker to test a failover, I believe the Consumer's logs show
it trying to failover to another broker.
Dingwen Yuan wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a way to know that a failover ActiveMQ client is now trying to
> connect to the brokers?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
>
> Dingwen Yu
Hello,
What would be involved in having a queue consumer consume messages from
multiple brokers? Perhaps in a round robin fashion?
Is there currently any functionality like this built in AMQ?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Consumer-of-multiple-Brokers--tf3706296s2354.ht
Is it possible to use a roundrobin policy in a rollback?
Currently a session.rollback results in retries on the same consumer. And if
they all fail, the message ends up on the Dead Letter Queue instead of
trying other available consumers. Does anyone have a solution?
PS - How can I configure a r
I have a simple scenario and a question on behaviour.
SCENARIO:
1 Broker with 50 messages and 2 consumers (consumer.prefetchSize=0) of its
queue. (CLIENT_ACK mode)
The first consumer continuously pulls 1 message and closes & reopens session
(to simulate continuous failures). This correctly caus
What are my options for the following requirement:
Step 1: A consumer gets a message from a broker's queue (which will likely
use roundrobin).
Step 2: It realizes that it doesn't want this particular message at this
time, so the broker should deliver it to another consumer.
Here are the options
redelivered to another consumer.
spiderman2 wrote:
>
> I have a broker (with a queue, NOT topic) on one host, and consumers on
> various other hosts. After a consumer has taken a persistent message from
> the Broker queue but dies before having processed it and ACK its
> completion, what
achan wrote:
>
> On 4/12/07, spiderman2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I have a broker (with a queue, NOT topic) on one host, and consumers on
>> various other hosts. After a consumer has taken a persistent message from
>> the Broker queue but dies before havi
I have a broker (with a queue, NOT topic) on one host, and consumers on
various other hosts. After a consumer has taken a persistent message from
the Broker queue but dies before having processed it and ACK its completion,
what happens?
1) Is the message redelivered to another consumer? (Through
TED]> wrote:
>> I don't want these consumers to be exclusive to receiving priority1 jobs
>> though.
>
> I don't follow - could you describe what you're after a bit more
> specifically.
>
>
>> James.Strachan wrote:
>> >
>> > On 3/2
I want to limit the concurrent processing of messages on a broker which have
a certain filter value.
For example, I only want my pool of consumers to consume N messages with the
'priority=1' at the same time.
Can this be done?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Concurrent-C
I've read the
http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html doc but the
diagram mentions a database. I thought we're only talking about writing to a
file system?? Just a typo?
I see that the configuration mentioned in the doc is pointing to a file
system:
but is called a "jo
rted in any HA
scenario??
Does anyone have a recommended deployment of HA with minimal to no message
loss (that isn't as slow as JDBC persistance)?
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> On 2/22/07, spiderman2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking into clustered HA dep
I'm looking into clustered HA deployments with zero message loss under one
point-of-failure.
My best options seem to be:
A) Network of Brokers with fast journaling and jdbc persistance
B) JDBC Master Slave
BUT, what if broker dies before it writes its batch to the database, but
after it comp
Nevermind guys - I've realized that the Queue doesn't get populated upon
failover but only after a Producer or Consumer also fail to the new broker.
Cheers!
spiderman2 wrote:
>
> When failing over to a slave, should the unconsumed messages of the broker
> be entered in the
When failing over to a slave, should the unconsumed messages of the broker be
entered in the queue of the slave?
I'm not seeing this happen. I'm following the example of
http://activemq.apache.org/jdbc-master-slave.html JDBC Master Slave and I'm
using JConsole to see the number of messages in t
Another way to solve your problem is to use the "failover://" URI.
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html See
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
for an example on how a consumer can fail from a master to a slave.
MatÃas Cobiella wrote:
>
> Hi,
Some more info:
- My Producer's delivery mode is PERSISTANT
- I have no consumers who would have taken the messages (and I can see htem
when restarting the Master)
- attached is my config - but its basically just the given example.
spiderman2 wrote:
>
> I've gotten the slav
onsole shows that it has no messages.
Shouldn't these messages have been failedover to the *new* Master?
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> Yes - so fingers crossed once you've got your classpath sorted it should
> be fine
>
> On 2/9/07, spiderman2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
asically need to refer to the #oracle-ds in your
> like the example does...
>
>
>
>
> On 2/9/07, spiderman2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I've now tried running the Master and Slave on different hosts, as the
>> JDBC
>> Master-Slave e
se, then the slave
> clearly waits for the lock? Then when the master is killed it should
> be clear that the slave takes over right?
>
> Both brokers are definitely using the same database right? I'm
> wondering if for some reason the exclusive locking isn't working
>
&g
I'm running the JDBC Master/Slave example as defined on
http://activemq.apache.org/jdbc-master-slave.html Web Docs
Once they're both running (and logs show they're aware of each other), I put
100 messages on the Master's Queue. When I shut the Master down, I would
expect to see these messages a
I've read about the shared database (known to be slow) and shared file
system, SAN, (quite expensive HW). But where can I read about replicating
messages. I was under the impression that Brokers currently do *not*
replicate messages under a Network Of Brokers scenario. Only a M-S scenario.
How ca
:
>
> Yes, Master/Slave is the answer for high availability and to avoid
> message loss if a broker dies.
>
>
> On 2/7/07, spiderman2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a New user. I'd like to use activemq for a Network Of Br
Hi,
I'm a New user. I'd like to use activemq for a Network Of Brokers /
Clustered deployment. The catch is that I can't afford to loose a single
message in the event of failure.
In the Network of Brokers topology, I'm reading this isn't possible:
"At any point in time the message will only exis
24 matches
Mail list logo
