Artemis: Cluster vs Broker Mesh with failover transport

Hello Folks, I was playing around with multiple Artemis brokers for a robust infrastructure setuo for a while, Can somebody please explain why a HA Cluster should be considered if I can alternatively use a (static) network of brokers together with failover transport at the client side

Re: ActiveMQ failover transport considers http URIs that share the same hostname/IP & port as duplicates - the path is ignored

tion or code, that this was a > legitimate way to work then I, and my networking team, would be delighted! > > Paul > > > From: Matt Pavlovich > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 7:28 PM > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: Activ

Re: ActiveMQ failover transport considers http URIs that share the same hostname/IP & port as duplicates - the path is ignored

hen I, and my networking team, would be delighted! Paul From: Matt Pavlovich Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 7:28 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ failover transport considers http URIs that share the same hostname/IP & port as duplicates - th

Re: ActiveMQ failover transport considers http URIs that share the same hostname/IP & port as duplicates - the path is ignored

change for the different brokers behind a load balancer? Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Mar 10, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Paul McCulloch > wrote: > > Hi, > > I've found what I think is a bug in the failover transport in 5.x. If I use > two https URLs that share a hostname &

ActiveMQ failover transport considers http URIs that share the same hostname/IP & port as duplicates - the path is ignored

Hi, I've found what I think is a bug in the failover transport in 5.x. If I use two https URLs that share a hostname & Port (https://company,com/broker/1 & https://company,com/broker/2) then the second doesn't get added to the failover transport's internal list of URIs

Re: Failover Transport hangs forever on connection.start() in Master/Slave

Hi, Following is the stack trace for successful connection to activeMQ: # 2019-04-30 20:51:52 DEBUG TaskRunnerFactory:91 - Initialized TaskRunnerFactory[ActiveMQ Task] using ExecutorService: java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor@6504e3b2[Running, pool siz

Re: Failover Transport hangs forever on connection.start() in Master/Slave

nt till i make one of the instance(either > master or slave) for activemq go down. > > > > mikmela wrote > > You haven't mentioned a version of your activemq, there were some issues > > with > > that in older versions... > > We're o

Re: Failover Transport hangs forever on connection.start() in Master/Slave

bove point till i make one of the instance(either master or slave) for activemq go down. mikmela wrote > You haven't mentioned a version of your activemq, there were some issues > with > that in older versions... > We're on 5.6.0 and above - no issues... > See > ht

Re: Failover Transport hangs forever on connection.start() in Master/Slave

You haven't mentioned a version of your activemq, there were some issues with that in older versions... We're on 5.6.0 and above - no issues... See http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference <http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference> -- Sent from:

Failover Transport hangs forever on connection.start() in Master/Slave

Hi,  I have Master/Slave broker url for failover transport as follows:  (ssl://brokerurl1:61616,ssl://brokerurl2:61616)?timeout=5000&startupMaxReconnectAttempts=5&maxReconnectAttempts=5   Client picks up one broker url at random, if the url picked up to connect at random is slave, the ca

Re: ActiveMQ Failover Transport for Artemis

Hello Art, Thank you for the reply! I'm also interested in how to specify two nodes for the end client. Assuming we have two servers: IP1, IP2. For ActiveMQ we may use it in the following way: failover:(tcp://IP1:61616,tcp://IP2:61616) Is there a way to specify two hosts when we connecting to t

Re: ActiveMQ Failover Transport for Artemis

Hi David, There is failover in Artemis, check out this documentation: https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/latest/ha.html As for the scenario of getting primary back again, check the section "Failing Back to live Server". - Art -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-

ActiveMQ Failover Transport for Artemis

Hello everyone, We are using Artemis 2.6.3 and would like to know if there is anything like the Failover Transport we could configure for our client sessions. (http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html) Client should always connect to primary. If not, use the secondary. If

Failover transport hangs up when trying to initialize second connection in the pool

I have quite simple Spring Boot application. Inside it I have: * ActiveMQ client * Bitronix Transaction manager * My own LogBack JMS Appender that is sending logs to the AMQ queue. Code can be found here . Everything is working perfectly w

Re: Cannot monitor Failover Transport

Hi,Sorry for not being more specific. I have created an example with my setup. You can find it here . It is a simple spring boot application where the broker url is set to 2 failover addresses (no ActiveMQ needs to run to see the i

Re: Cannot monitor Failover Transport

Hi Filip, First of all, you should share more details on your setup. Is it just one broker listed within failover:(..), or more than one? Are you sure you are registering your TransportListener properly on a client side? If you have more than one broker for failover, and you connect to the first o

Cannot monitor Failover Transport

onnection-with-the-broker.html> , using a default failover settings and the broker being down nothing is being sent to the listener. Is this an expected behaviour? How can one monitor when the failover transport is not being able to connect? Apart from looking into the warning message into the

Re: [ActiveMQ-CPP] "backup=true" does not work with failover transport

ould not cause messages to be lost. > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/ActiveMQ-CPP-backup-true-does-not-work-with-failover-transport- > tp4728967p4729101.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Re: [ActiveMQ-CPP] "backup=true" does not work with failover transport

nsumed before the shutdown then the failover would not cause messages to be lost. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-CPP-backup-true-does-not-work-with-failover-transport-tp4728967p4729101.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [ActiveMQ-CPP] "backup=true" does not work with failover transport

Tim, Is the following a correct restatement of your response? "The backup feature of the failover transport is known to not work in ActiveMQ-CPP. If you'd like, you can submit a bug in JIRA to request that it be fixed." Tim On Jul 31, 2017 6:53 AM, "Timothy Bish" wrot

Re: [ActiveMQ-CPP] "backup=true" does not work with failover transport

.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-CPP-backup-true-does-not-work-with-failover-transport-tp4728967p4729057.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. I'd recommend leaving backup=true out of the URI and run without it, that should resolve the issue -- Tim Bish twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Re: [ActiveMQ-CPP] "backup=true" does not work with failover transport

er of connections were 160-160 to amq02 which was no more the case. I repeated the test and I restarted everything not only once but the behaviour didn't change. I would appreciate your feedback. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-CPP-backu

Re: [ActiveMQ-CPP] "backup=true" does not work with failover transport

e.com/ActiveMQ-CPP-backup-true-does-not-work-with-failover-transport-tp4728967.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. I'd recommend using the latest release which has some backup handling fixes (3.9.4) -- Tim Bish twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

[ActiveMQ-CPP] "backup=true" does not work with failover transport

tempted to reconnect to the first broker 4 times but never to the second broker, which was up. Any ideas how I could get "backup=true" to work? May it be a bug in the library? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-CPP-backup-true-does-no

Re: Problem of shutting down ActiveMQ client with failover transport running in java container (Karaf)

-with-failover-transport-running-in-java-container-Karaf-tp4719513p4719828.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: ActiveMQ failover transport - producers/consumers work on different hosts

priorityBackup solved the problem. Thanks for the help! -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-transport-producers-consumers-work-on-different-hosts-tp4719747p4719788.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: ActiveMQ failover transport - producers/consumers work on different hosts

This is a copy paste error. It's randomize naturally. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-transport-producers-consumers-work-on-different-hosts-tp4719747p4719752.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

ActiveMQ failover transport - producers/consumers work on different hosts

message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-transport-producers-consumers-work-on-different-hosts-tp4719747.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: ActiveMQ failover transport - producers/consumers work on different hosts

You'll probably want to use the priorityBackup option on the failover transport, to ensure that any long-running connections return to server #1 when it comes back up. http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html If you're going to run two standalone brokers for thi

Re: ActiveMQ failover transport - producers/consumers work on different hosts

ould be able to pass messages in between them independently on to which broker the consumers connects. (http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html) regards Mats -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-transport-producers-consumers-wor

Re: Problem of shutting down ActiveMQ client with failover transport running in java container (Karaf)

I've looked at the 5.14.1 sources a little bit and it seems they have the the same problem to. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. nabble.com/Problem-of-shutting-down-ActiveMQ-client-with-failover-transport- running-in-java-container-Karaf-tp4719513.html Sent from the

Problem of shutting down ActiveMQ client with failover transport running in java container (Karaf)

dException("handleTransportFailure is interrupted due to " + e.getMessage()); } I've looked at the 5.14.1 sources a little bit and it seems they have the the same problem to. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Problem-of-shutting-down-Acti

Priority URI utilization with failover transport

In the following example from http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html failover:(tcp://local1:61616,tcp://local2:61616,tcp://remote:61616)?randomize=false&priorityBackup=true&priorityURIs=tcp://local1:61616,tcp://local2:61616 Will local1 always be tried before local2 o

Connection sometimes hang dispatching message when interrupted failover transport resumes

We are using ActiveMQ version 5.9.0 and using the Failover Transport with a single host and suspect that a JMS connection failure (transportInterrupted)/re-connection (transportResumed) is sometimes causing a thread which is dispatching a message to the Broker to become stuck/hung. Once this

Re: Problem with failover transport and amazon elb

gt; > org.apache.activemq.transport.tcp.TcpTransport.readCommand(TcpTransport.java:221) > at > org.apache.activemq.transport.tcp.TcpTransport.doRun(TcpTransport.java:213) > at > org.apache.activemq.transport.tcp.TcpTransport.run(TcpTransport.java:196) > at jav

Problem with failover transport and amazon elb

) at org.apache.activemq.transport.tcp.TcpTransport.run(TcpTransport.java:196) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745) -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Problem-with-failover-transport-and-amazon-elb-tp4705462.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User

Re: failover transport not timing out

You may need to set maxReconnectAttempts and startupMaxReconnectAttempts to get control back from the failover transport when no brokers are available. The failover transport's documentation ( http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html) explicitly says that the timeou

failover transport not timing out

tDelay=1000&updateURIsURL=/tmp/brokerlist.txt brokerlist can have 1 or more uri, eg. tcp://b1:61616,tcp://b2:61616 -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/failover-transport-not-timing-out-tp4702657.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport

h, 30. September 2015 15:12 > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport > > How is Camel setting the shutdown flag on the PooledTaskRunner? Is Camel > calling the shutdown() function to shut it down? The shutdown() method

RE: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport

Message- From: Ganesh Murthy [mailto:gmur...@redhat.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 30. September 2015 15:12 To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport How is Camel setting the shutdown flag on the PooledTaskRunner? Is Camel calling the

Re: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport

. Have you tried the "timeout" parameter in FailoverTransport? http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html If you are using an IDE like IntelliJ, try putting in breakpoints on only that PooledTaskRunner thread and analyze what is going on. Thanks. -Origin

RE: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport

Hi, please find attached the thread dump. Regards, Anna -Original Message- From: Ganesh Murthy [mailto:gmur...@redhat.com] Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2015 16:52 To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport Can you please

Re: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport

MQ and it fails to shutdown when the ActiveMQComponent cannot make a connection to the broker with the failover protocol (activemq version 5.12.0). The problem seems to be that the failover transport tries to connect to the broker in an endless loop on its own thread that cannot be interrupte

Re: Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport

h failover transport Hi, I am using Camel to connect to ActiveMQ and it fails to shutdown when the ActiveMQComponent cannot make a connection to the broker with the failover protocol (activemq version 5.12.0). The problem seems to be that the failover transport tries to connect to the broker in

Problem shutting down activemq client with failover transport

Hi, I am using Camel to connect to ActiveMQ and it fails to shutdown when the ActiveMQComponent cannot make a connection to the broker with the failover protocol (activemq version 5.12.0). The problem seems to be that the failover transport tries to connect to the broker in an endless loop

Failover Transport Stops Working

Hi, "I am having trouble with messages not being delivered after a reconnect. I am using ActiveMQ 5.7. My clients are connecting using the failover transport and ssl." - moodycl I have posted this same problem here before but this time I think it is a little different. A few yea

Re: High CPU load with network connector, failover transport

Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5605 -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/High-CPU-load-with-network-connector-failover-transport-tp4691798p4691829.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High CPU load with network connector, failover transport

would be fine to > just call dispose() before fireBridgeFailed() in the case where we can’t > retrieve the broker info > > > > This does seem like a fairly serious problem; as far as I’m aware this > is a common use case; anyone using the masterslave transport or the > failover transport w/ the required maxReconnectAttempts=0 for bridges would > be exposed to it for example. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tim > > >

Re: High CPU load with network connector, failover transport

oes seem like a fairly serious problem; as far as I’m aware this is a > common use case; anyone using the masterslave transport or the failover > transport w/ the required maxReconnectAttempts=0 for bridges would be exposed > to it for example. > > Regards, > > Tim >

High CPU load with network connector, failover transport

it would be fine to just call dispose() before fireBridgeFailed() in the case where we can’t retrieve the broker info This does seem like a fairly serious problem; as far as I’m aware this is a common use case; anyone using the masterslave transport or the failover transport w/ the required ma

Re: Question on failover transport options

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:37:50 -0700 (PDT), "tabish...@gmail.com" wrote: >I've created an issue to track the behaviour as it's not really what you'd >expect and resolved it in ActiveMQ trunk and ActiveMQ-CPP trunk and the >3.8.x fixes branch. Should work as you expected now. Thanks. We've remo

Re: Question on failover transport options

I've created an issue to track the behaviour as it's not really what you'd expect and resolved it in ActiveMQ trunk and ActiveMQ-CPP trunk and the 3.8.x fixes branch. Should work as you expected now. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Quest

Re: Question on failover transport options

the failover transport correctly. We have maxReconnectAttempts & startupMaxReconnectAttempts set to the default which should mean the transport should retry to connect forever, yes? However, if the broker is not available, the connection attempt gives up after 20 seconds (which is the settin

Re: Question on failover transport options

10/2014 04:42 AM, spam trap wrote: >>>>> [ActiveMQ-CPP 3.8.2] >>>>> >>>>> I am unsure how to configure the failover transport correctly. We >>>>> have maxReconnectAttempts & startupMaxReconnectAttempts set to the >>>>&

Re: Question on failover transport options

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:07:43 -0400, Timothy Bish wrote: >On 06/10/2014 06:47 AM, spam trap wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:06:03 -0400, Timothy Bish >> wrote: >> >>> On 06/10/2014 04:42 AM, spam trap wrote: >>>> [ActiveMQ-CPP 3.8.2] >>>> &g

Re: Question on failover transport options

On 06/10/2014 06:47 AM, spam trap wrote: On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:06:03 -0400, Timothy Bish wrote: On 06/10/2014 04:42 AM, spam trap wrote: [ActiveMQ-CPP 3.8.2] I am unsure how to configure the failover transport correctly. We have maxReconnectAttempts & startupMaxReconnectAttempts se

Re: Question on failover transport options

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:06:03 -0400, Timothy Bish wrote: >On 06/10/2014 04:42 AM, spam trap wrote: >> [ActiveMQ-CPP 3.8.2] >> >> I am unsure how to configure the failover transport correctly. We >> have maxReconnectAttempts & startupMaxReconnectAttempts set to t

Re: Question on failover transport options

On 06/10/2014 04:42 AM, spam trap wrote: [ActiveMQ-CPP 3.8.2] I am unsure how to configure the failover transport correctly. We have maxReconnectAttempts & startupMaxReconnectAttempts set to the default which should mean the transport should retry to connect forever, yes? However, if

Question on failover transport options

[ActiveMQ-CPP 3.8.2] I am unsure how to configure the failover transport correctly. We have maxReconnectAttempts & startupMaxReconnectAttempts set to the default which should mean the transport should retry to connect forever, yes? However, if the broker is not available, the connection att

Consumer disconnects but using failover transport

>From time to time a consumer will disconnect from the Broker and not attempt to reestablish the connection. The log contains the following message: 2014-05-12 12:34:07,893 | WARN | ctiveMQ NIO Worker 28664 | Transport | ivemq.broker.TransportConnection 205 | 72 - org.apache.activemq.activemq-cor

Re: setting randomize=false doesn't work in failover transport

fixed > in 5.9.0. I upgraded and it works just fine. Maybe it's a good idea to add > that this bug fix fixes also this issue. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/setting-randomize-false-doesn-t-work-in-failover-transport-t

Re: setting randomize=false doesn't work in failover transport

this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/setting-randomize-false-doesn-t-work-in-failover-transport-tp4677390p4677452.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: setting randomize=false doesn't work in failover transport

Priority="true"/> > > >discoveryUri="multicast://225.0.0.0"/> > > > > > > > > (syntax highlighted version here) > > Now, we want clients to use failover transport but preferably connect to a >

setting randomize=false doesn't work in failover transport

Hey, We have a network of brokers with the following configuration in each broker: ( syntax highlighted version here <http://pastebin.com/embed_iframe.php?i=LnP8NqpD> ) Now, we want clients to use failover transport but preferably connect to a local broker, so we use this connection URI

Re: Duplex networkConnector with SSL based failover transport on ActiveMQ 5.9.0.

Looks like the move the masterslave instead of static + removing the failover transport did the trick --thanks! We ended up using the following; http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Duplex-networkConnector-with-SSL-based-failover-transport-on-ActiveMQ-5-9-0-tp4677041p4677209.html Sent from the

Re: Duplex networkConnector with SSL based failover transport on ActiveMQ 5.9.0.

alk" to another cluster within the same network. Ideally, we would like >> to encrypt the traffic between the two clusters, all while maintaining HA by >> use of the failover transport. We have attempted to accomplish this by >> defining the following config entry: >> &

Re: Duplex networkConnector with SSL based failover transport on ActiveMQ 5.9.0.

ry 2014 22:41, David Laube wrote: > Hi All, > > We are attempting to use a duplex networkConnector on a cluster that needs to > "talk" to another cluster within the same network. Ideally, we would like to > encrypt the traffic between the two clusters, all while maint

Duplex networkConnector with SSL based failover transport on ActiveMQ 5.9.0.

Hi All, We are attempting to use a duplex networkConnector on a cluster that needs to "talk" to another cluster within the same network. Ideally, we would like to encrypt the traffic between the two clusters, all while maintaining HA by use of the failover transport. We have at

Re: maxReconnectAttempts in failover transport

Thanks Tim 2013/11/20 Timothy Creswick : >however the client isn't able to resolve the name that it receives. That makes sense for for me , but client's machine has got these entries in its hosts file It's weird. Maybe I'm not doing the right tests So far, I'm going to disable that feature Rega

RE: maxReconnectAttempts in failover transport

> javax.jms.JMSException: java.net.UnknownHostException See my earlier posts on this subject, but the problem is that your broker is sending connection details for the other brokers to your client, however the client isn't able to resolve the name that it receives. For example, if you have two

Re: maxReconnectAttempts in failover transport

I could find out that this error is caused by updateClusterClients="true" So, I need to se it to false Thanks 2013/11/20 Jose María Zaragoza : > Hello: > > I'm using AMQ 5.8.0 > > I've defined the next transport failover > > "failover:(tcp://broker1:61616?connectionTimeout=3000,tcp://broke

maxReconnectAttempts in failover transport

Hello: I'm using AMQ 5.8.0 I've defined the next transport failover "failover:(tcp://broker1:61616?connectionTimeout=3000,tcp://broker2:61616?connectionTimeout=3000)?timeout=5000&startupMaxReconnectAttempts=1&maxReconnectAttempts=1&randomize=false&priorityBackup=false" I start a Consumer, conn

Weird behaviour with failover transport + priorityBackup=true

Hello: I'm using AMQ 5.8 and ActiveMQConnectionFactory uses this transport connection "failover:(tcp://broker1:61616?connectionTimeout=3000,tcp://broker2:61617?connectionTimeout=3000,tcp://broker3:61618?connectionTimeout=3000)?timeout=5000&maxReconnectAttempts=0&randomize=false&priorityBackup=tru

Re: failover transport connect

Is your broker (mq-1) failing? On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Nate Faerber wrote: > Hi, > > I have two ActiveMQ server configured as network of brokers and my clients > with this connect string: > > > failover:(tcp://mq1-master:61616,tcp://mq2-master:61616)?randomize=false&backup=true&maxReco

failover transport connect

Hi, I have two ActiveMQ server configured as network of brokers and my clients with this connect string: failover:(tcp://mq1-master:61616,tcp://mq2-master:61616)?randomize=false&backup=true&maxReconnectDelay=1 It seems that every time we create a JMS message using Spring Framework, the Activ

Re: Can Failover transport retry current connection first?

mes falsely detects connection lost to broker1 and > successfully reconnects to broker2. Is there a way to configure failover > transport to retry broker1 first before trying broker2? > > I understand that "Priority Backup" is introduced as part of 5.6.0 and that > might

Re: Apollo Openwire, Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ and Failover Transport

e > protocol support. Does anybody know if the failover transport is supported? > I'm using this simple connectionstring... > > failover:(tcp://localhost:61613) > > And I get the following error... > > ConnectionError: Unspported command: class > org.apache.activemq.ap

Can Failover transport retry current connection first?

5000&maxReconnectAttempts=10 Java client sometimes falsely detects connection lost to broker1 and successfully reconnects to broker2. Is there a way to configure failover transport to retry broker1 first before trying broker2? I understand that "Priority Backup" is introduced as part of 5.6.0 and th

Re: Apollo Openwire, Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ and Failover Transport

ver in the first place, then you should be able to use failover. Best, Jim On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 5:22 AM, dean.ward wrote: > Hi all, > I'm attempting to use Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ with Apollo 1.5's Openwire > protocol support. Does anybody know if the failover transport is suppo

Apollo Openwire, Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ and Failover Transport

Hi all, I'm attempting to use Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ with Apollo 1.5's Openwire protocol support. Does anybody know if the failover transport is supported? I'm using this simple connectionstring... failover:(tcp://localhost:61613) And I get the following error... ConnectionEr

Re: Can failover transport retry current connection first?

it is not a great solution, but you could repeat the tcp://broker1:61616 urla few times. The logic discards the current url on failure and moves on to the next in the list. There is a backup option, which keeps a hot backup, but if this is created at the same time it may suffer from the same probl

Can failover transport retry current connection first?

5000&maxReconnectAttempts=10 Java client sometimes falsely detects connection lost to broker1 and successfully reconnects to broker2. Is there a way to configure failover transport to retry broker1 first before trying broker2? I understand that "Priority Backup" is introduced as part of 5.6.0 an

Re: FailOver transport not reconnecting

some don't. > > Am I missing some parameter in the networkConnector bridge configuration? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/FailOver-transport-not-reconnecting-tp4656549p4656613.html > Sent from the ActiveM

Re: FailOver transport not reconnecting

I'm seeing this situation happen more often in my servers and seems pretty random, some servers do connect and some don't. Am I missing some parameter in the networkConnector bridge configuration? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/FailOver-tra

FailOver transport not reconnecting

hen the stand alone broker bounces and having to bounce the clients to restablish connection. I'm using ActiveMQ 5.6 on the stand alone broker and embedded broker clients. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/FailOver-transport-not-reconnecting-tp4656549.

Re: PooledConnectionFactory + Failover Transport combination

FuseSource Corp. > >> dej...@fusesource.com | fusesource.com > >> skype: dejan.bosanac | twitter: @dejanb > >> blog: http://www.nighttale.net > >> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at

Re: PooledConnectionFactory + Failover Transport combination

gt;> dej...@fusesource.com | fusesource.com >> skype: dejan.bosanac | twitter: @dejanb >> blog: http://www.nighttale.net >> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Gaurav Sharma >> wrote: >> &g

Re: PooledConnectionFactory + Failover Transport combination

yder/ > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Gaurav Sharma > wrote: > > It seems like with a failover transport configuration > > (failover:(nio:host1:port1,nio:host2:port2)?randomize=false) and a > > PooledConnectionFactory, the client-side still tries to create a

Re: PooledConnectionFactory + Failover Transport combination

, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Gaurav Sharma wrote: > It seems like with a failover transport configuration > (failover:(nio:host1:port1,nio:host2:port2)?randomize=false) and a > PooledConnectionFactory, the client-side still tries to create a new > connection per thread instead of fetching from

PooledConnectionFactory + Failover Transport combination

It seems like with a failover transport configuration (failover:(nio:host1:port1,nio:host2:port2)?randomize=false) and a PooledConnectionFactory, the client-side still tries to create a new connection per thread instead of fetching from the pool of connections. With 'randomize' flag tur

Re: Disable failover transport

/Disable-failover-transport-tp4653134p4653183.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Disable failover transport

), SCSA SCNA -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Disable-failover-transport-tp4653134p4653153.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Custom Transport - similar to Failover transport

h active ActiveMQ broker died, then another > ActiveMQ broker is started => so I have only one "active" instance of > ActiveMQ broker at one time (JDBC persistence). > > On the "client side" I used failover transport at first (I must specify all > cluster node ad

Re: Custom Transport - similar to Failover transport

Thanks a lot. It is what I searched ... Now I see it in Failover Transport documentation too ... sorry I missed it in ActiveMQ "cluster" options at first time. Thank you again. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Custom-Transport-similar-to-Failover

Re: Custom Transport - similar to Failover transport

oker, which can run only as one instance (singleton) in whole cluster app. > If the "cluster node" with active ActiveMQ broker died, then another > ActiveMQ broker is started => so I have only one "active" instance of > ActiveMQ broker at one time (JDBC persistence). &g

Custom Transport - similar to Failover transport

ne "active" instance of ActiveMQ broker at one time (JDBC persistence). On the "client side" I used failover transport at first (I must specify all cluster node addresses, where ActiveMQ broker can run - failover uri). I would like to modify "static" failover configuratio

Re: failover transport recovery behavior

eClusterClients") that should proactively disconnect clients from their current broker when there is a change in your current cluster... such as a previously unavailable broker becoming available again. See http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html for documentation on the fa

failover transport recovery behavior

I have a primary and secondary node configured with the failover transport. When the primary node dies, producers and consumers switch over to the secondary node just fine. However, when the primary node comes back, only the producer seems to recover and migrate back to the primary, however the

Re: Sample failover transport configuration of activemq

Hi , Thanks for the reply. I understand that the values of the parameters mentioned in http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html varies from application to application but can someone send me a sample configuration file which covers all the scenarios I mentioned in my

Re: Sample failover transport configuration of activemq

http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html On May 2, 2011, at 12:59 PM, agujral wrote: > Hi All, > I am planning to use failover transport in activemq such that > following scenarios are covered: > a)When I specify multiple brokers activemq should be able

  1   2   >