Hi Tim
First of all: your suggestions to improve the failover sound great to me.
Thanks a lot for your effort in this field.
I also highly welcome James' answer that the failover implementation must
come along with NFS settings recommendations that work good with the
implementation.
There are so
Tim,
I thought this was an interesting read:
http://www.time-travellers.org/shane/papers/NFS_considered_harmful.html
Jim
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 09:45 Tim Bain wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback and questions.
>
> I hadn't considered any of the buffering/flushing/synchronization aspects
> of th
Thanks for the feedback and questions.
I hadn't considered any of the buffering/flushing/synchronization aspects
of the underlying NFS configuration, but you're absolutely right that the
guidelines for how to configure this solution need to acknowledge the
interplay between the two sets of setting
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 7:08 AM Tim Bain wrote:
>
> It seems pretty clear that the assumption that acquiring a single file
lock
> without doing any further checks will provide thread-safety in all cases
is
> not an accurate one.
>
> As I see it, here are the failures of the existing approach:
>
>
Thanks, in advance, for any info.
Very interesting. thanks for sharing.
รวดเร็ว ฉับไว รู้ลึก รู้จริง เรื่องฟุตบอลได้ที่นี่ ผลบอลสด
<https://polball.buaksib.com>
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-iss
Thanks, in advance, for any info.
Very interesting. thanks for sharing.
รายงานผลบอลสด กระชับ ฉับไว ได้ที่นี่ ผลบอลเมื่อคืน https://polball.buaksib.com>
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4697
d the delay in logs or I/O operations are slow during that
> > time but it does not justify why failover also open it's transport
> > connector.
> >
> > The main concern here is that the (master-slave-shared-storage)topology
> is
> > broken which should not happen in any case. If I/O operations are not
> > happening, master broker should stop and let the failover serve the
> clients
> > but here master didn't stop and both opened the connector.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anuj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4695731.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
All the issues you've seen with NFS matches up well with everything I've
seen dealing with NFS storage over the past 18 years. I had always thought
"maybe we're just doing it wrong," but I think everything you outlined
looks familiar to me.
When we decided to try using ActiveMQ a few months ago t
he logs in this order only and after further checking the
> system I
> > > got to know that NFS(where we put kahadb and broker logs) was slow
> during
> > > that time.
> > >
> > > I can understand the delay in logs or I/O operations are slow during
> that
> > > time but it does not justify why failover also open it's transport
> > > connector.
> > >
> > > The main concern here is that the (master-slave-shared-storage)topology
> > is
> > > broken which should not happen in any case. If I/O operations are not
> > > happening, master broker should stop and let the failover serve the
> > clients
> > > but here master didn't stop and both opened the connector.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anuj
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4695731.html
> > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> >
>
that
> > time but it does not justify why failover also open it's transport
> > connector.
> >
> > The main concern here is that the (master-slave-shared-storage)topology
> is
> > broken which should not happen in any case. If I/O operations are not
> > happening, master broker should stop and let the failover serve the
> clients
> > but here master didn't stop and both opened the connector.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anuj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4695731.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
hich should not happen in any case. If I/O operations are not
> happening, master broker should stop and let the failover serve the clients
> but here master didn't stop and both opened the connector.
>
> Thanks,
> Anuj
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4695731.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
operations are not
happening, master broker should stop and let the failover serve the clients
but here master didn't stop and both opened the connector.
Thanks,
Anuj
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4695731.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
connector.
Thanks,
Anuj
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4695731.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
EOFException
> [20150425 08:04:04.558 EDT (ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp:///10.12.9.61:34209@61616)
> org.apache.activemq.broker.TransportConnection#serviceTransportException 24
> 5 WARN] - Transport Connection to: tcp://10.12.9.61:34209 failed:
> java.io.EOFException
> [20150425 0
ailed:
java.io.EOFException
[20150425 08:03:49.558 EDT (ActiveMQ Transport:
tcp:///10.12.9.61:34201@61616) org.apache.acti
Thanks,
Anuj
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp4695677p4695678.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ -
15 matches
Mail list logo
