I am setting up four ActiveMQ brokers on two separate machines.
Master A Machine 1
Slave B on Machine 1
Slave A on Machine 2
Master B on Machine 2
Master C Machine 1
Slave D on Machine 1
Slave C on Machine 2
Master D on Machine 2
All of the brokers are running and there are no issues.
The net
> Also, doing message replication is often times an anti-pattern in
messaging because it creates split brain scenarios during many unplanned
outages that require taking the entire cluster down to resend.
Split brain is certainly a potential risk that needs to be mitigated (as
outlined in the docum
Hi Marc-
Yep, that approach sounds on target. The async-replication is a successful
approach to avoid the side-effects with sync-based replication in messaging
systems.
-Matt
> On May 22, 2024, at 5:43 PM, Marc Boorshtein wrote:
>
> Thanks Matt for the explanation. We have two scenarios we
Thanks Matt for the explanation. We have two scenarios we want to be able
to do:
1. In cluster HA - Right now we have one Deployment with a PVC. If the AMQ
dies the client app stops working until the AMQ deployment is back up.
It's not high volume at all. If I hear what you're saying, and have
Hi Marc-
Scenarios when the queue shows up on a broker:
1. A message is delivered
2. A producer, browser or consumer is connected
3. A Virtual Destination subscriber queue is added on one broker and the remote
brokers automatically add them when the proper configuration flags are enabled.
The m
I'm not sure about the exact behavior of ActiveMQ Classic here, but I do
know what ActiveMQ Artemis does, and it doesn't behave according to your
expectations.
I would be a bit surprised if ActiveMQ Classic behaved as you expect
because it wouldn't scale very well. Moving messages around the netwo
>
>
>
>
> When you say "queue" do you mean a JMS queue?
Yes. (right now just from the admin interface).
> Why would you necessarily
> expect a queue created on one node to be created on a different node in the
> network?
This is the mental block i'm having. What my thought is that if a que
> But when I create a queue in amq0, it doesn't appear in amq1.
When you say "queue" do you mean a JMS queue? Why would you necessarily
expect a queue created on one node to be created on a different node in the
network? Also, what exactly are you doing to create the queue on amq0?
> ...when I cr
I've setup 3 brokers in Kubernetes as StatefulSets. Each one has its own
unique broker name. In each broker config I setup a
block similar to:
Each broker connects to the other 2. Once all three are running i can see
in the logs that they're connecting:
amq-orchestra
INFO |
You are welcome =)
failover - client side to support auto-reconnect to one or more brokers due to
connection drop
masterslave - broker side to support exactly your architecture. Moving messages
to one of a group of brokers where there is one active and one or more failover
brokers
Matt Pavlov
Hi Matt,
Thank you sooo much for answering my question. That simple config change fixed
the problem! I’m so grateful
Out of curiosity, the documentation mentions
but there are a some other non-intuitive options that must be configured for it
to work as desired
For my own edification, is the
Hi Bruce-
Network Connectors retry or ‘failover’ automatically, so you should don’t use
the ‘failover’ transport in your networkConnector uri.
The networkConnector uri scheme you are looking for in this architecture is
‘masterslave’:
https://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/documentation
Hi Marco,
Thanks for checking back in.
from pom.xml
org.apache.activemq
activemq-client
5.15.8
org.apache.activemq
activemq-pool
5.15.8
The server is 5.17.6
When you asked this, I realised my dependencies were kind of old, so I
updated it to
jakarta.jms
jakarta.jms-api
3.1.0
org.apa
Hello Bruce,
thanks for sharing precise info
That sounds really very strange and sounds like a bug of AMQ (or a
configuration issue).
A question, maybe trivial: which version of AMQ jar library are you using
on your Java producer?
*Distinti Saluti / *Kind Regards
M.G.
Il giorno lun 26 feb 202
Now I have to rescind my previous comments. It runs out NON_PERSISTENT
messages from clients or the browser console are forwarded and consumed
correctly, but PERSISTENT messages are not transmitted correctly. This is
true whether I send from the console, from JAVA using the JMS/OpenWire
client or
As a follow up, I can now confirm that using a different client (an AMQP
client written in javascript using the rhea library) works as expected. It
is just this Java process that is broken. Any assistance you can provide
would be greatly appreciated.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:21, Bruce Cooper w
Hi Marco,
Thanks for your response. I agree it is strange. I now have some more
information to share. It now looks like it has something to do with my
message producer, rather than core ActiveMQ behaviour.
If I send messages using the ActiveMQ console on Broker A, they are
transmitted and rece
Hello Bruce,
that sounds very strange because with BrokerB stopped I understood that
everything is working good at the first subsequent run of the producer
script
"
*5. Run the producer script again.6. Observe that one set of messages is
delivered*"
while the issue appears at the following run
Bruce Cooper"
An: users@activemq.apache.org
Datum: 23.02.2024 03:24
Betreff:[Ext] Issue with network of brokers and active/passive
pair
Hi,
I'm running into a strange issue configuring activemq 5.17.6 to forward
messages from a satellite broker to a pair of broker
Hi,
I'm running into a strange issue configuring activemq 5.17.6 to forward
messages from a satellite broker to a pair of brokers running in an
active/passive (failover) pair. I'm hoping somebody here can help me
I have three brokers. The first is running stand-alone, and is configured
with a o
way that I can set the base consumer priority in the xml config?
> So that messages prefer to travel through certain brokers?
>
> Thanks again, big help.
>
>
> From: Tim Bain
> Sent: 03 November 2021 11:40
> To: ActiveMQ Users
> Subject:
Sent: 03 November 2021 11:40
To: ActiveMQ Users
Subject: Re: Network of brokers and priority network links
Use static:(failover:(stuff))?maxReconnectAttempts=0.
Sorry for not remembering that it needed to be wrapped in static:(), the
masterslave transport has mostly eliminated direct use of the fai
, it's not listed anywhere in the network of brokers
> documentation. As I understand it, network connectors and transport
> connectors are treated very differently. Also, it's something that I have
> tried in the past in a desperate attempt to get this going. Below is a log
Hi Tim,
Thank for the additional info. I actually use the failover transport regularly
for clients, so am aware of the priorityBackup option - thanks all the same.
To be honest, I'm not surprised about the failover transport being unavailable,
it's not listed anywhere in the network
f you try to use the failover transport (discovery agent)
> then an exception will be thrown.
>
> Thanks again for the help, it's very much appreciated.
>
>
>
> From: Gary Tully
> Sent: 02 November 2021 10:04
> To: users@activemq.a
@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Network of brokers and priority network links
there is one tweak with
org.apache.activemq.network.NetworkBridgeConfiguration#setConsumerPriorityBase
which could be used to bias the fast links, set that to -1 for the
fast links and the others will default to -5, so ev
irm whether
> this can be done.
>
> Thanks again
>
>
> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre
> Sent: 01 November 2021 16:46
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Network of brokers and priority network links
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> If you are using ActiveMQ 5.x, you can de
.
Thanks again
From: Jean-Baptiste Onofre
Sent: 01 November 2021 16:46
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Network of brokers and priority network links
Hi Paul,
If you are using ActiveMQ 5.x, you can decrease network priority to allow local
consumers first
Hi Paul,
If you are using ActiveMQ 5.x, you can decrease network priority to allow local
consumers first and fallback to remote brokers else.
Is it what you are looking for ?
Regards
JB
> Le 1 nov. 2021 à 17:37, Paul Burgess a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to co
Hi,
I'm trying to configure a network of brokers, where links between the brokers
work as a 'Primary' and 'Secondary/Failover' pair, much like failover transport
connections and priority URIs.
I have links between sites that are fast and stable, that I want to be us
r are you OK
losing those messages forever (local storage is sufficient)?
Your Network of Brokers topology is called hub-and-spoke, and typically the
edge brokers initiate all broker-to-broker connections. Is that your plan?
Note that MQTT over TLS
secured Websockets would be "mqtt+wss
scenario a network of
brokers. The examples only show configurations with a TCP connection. It
does mention (https://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers) that other
connections (network connectors) are possible. In a book, I have seen that a
connection with a reverse proxy inbetween two Ac
I don't understand the difference between static and masterslave transport
prefix a network of brokers.
In documentation https://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html
A common configuration option for a network of brokers is to establish a
network bridge between a broker and a
ve pages on the ActiveMQ website.
Tim
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 1:56 AM factor wrote:
> I don't understand the difference between static and masterslave transport
> prefix a network of brokers.
>
> In documentation https://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html
>
> A com
I don't understand the difference between static and masterslave transport
prefix a network of brokers.
In documentation https://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html
A common configuration option for a network of brokers is to establish a
network bridge between a broker and a
Hi,
I have a set of network of brokers with the following configurations, i.e.
all resides on 4 different servers (ie different IP addresses)
Broker A (master)Broker B (master)
<master/sl
Find the solution.
need to add enableAudit="false" in policyEntry
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Thanks Tim
Actually I have already included the following configuration as per
document, it didn't work
.
Thanks
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Please see the Stuck Messages section of
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html.
Tim
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, 10:06 PM xing wrote:
> The ActiveMQ version is 5.15.2
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>
Hi there,
we are using a network of 8 brokers, connected via a multicast bridge.
ActiveMQ is running in LXC containers on hosts, which are randomly
distributed in multiple datacenters of a public hosting company. The
hosts are interconnected by a VPN (tinc). Due to the nature of this
reasonably di
The ActiveMQ version is 5.15.2
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Create two brokers A and B with mesh network connection as shown below
Broker A networkConnector
--
...
...
--
--
Broker B networkConnector
---
We're unable to get the our network of brokers connector to work without
hostname verification. Is there something wrong with this?
```
```
And it's failing with:
```
javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException:
java.security.cert.CertificateException: No
subject alternative DNS nam
Thank you, excellent!!
I apoligise for the doublepost and for not finding this myself.
Thanks again.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
AMQ 5.15.3
We have configured AMQ with two brokers clustering via static uri's
---
BrokerA config
---
...
...
...
--
BrokerB config
--
...
...
...
Generally this works great, but there are an edgecase whi
See the Stuck Messages section of
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html for an explanation of
the problem and its solution.
Tim
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 12:15 AM Dolk wrote:
> AMQ 5.15.3
>
> We have configured AMQ with two brokers clustering via static uri's
> ---
> Broke
AMQ 5.15.3
We have configured AMQ with two brokers clustering via static uri's
---
BrokerA config
---
...
...
...
--
BrokerB config
--
...
...
...
Generally this works great, but there are an edgecase whic
I have a problem with my Network of Brokers setup. I posted the question on
stackoverflow.com. If you have any experience with that setup and think you
might be able to help, please take a look:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49052541/why-does-this-activemq-broker-configuration-fail-after
ActiveMQ
5.x that facilitates the process of moving clients and messages off of a
broker. Maybe such a thing will get built in Artemis.
Tim
On Feb 26, 2018 6:14 AM, "ivo4311" wrote:
Hi,
I have the following scenario - A dynamically configured network of brokers
using the hub-and-spok
On 02/26/2018 11:01 AM, ivo4311 wrote:
Hi,
I have the following scenario - A dynamically configured network of brokers
using the hub-and-spokes topology where each node is connected to the hub
with a duplex network connector.
Scaling up the network is straightforward - new nodes are created
Hi,
I have the following scenario - A dynamically configured network of brokers
using the hub-and-spokes topology where each node is connected to the hub
with a duplex network connector.
Scaling up the network is straightforward - new nodes are created and they
connect to the hub (which has a
Are you looking to use the discovery transport for the client connections,
or both? I've never used it, but my understanding is that discovery is like
failover (connect to one broker in this list) rather than like static
(connect to all the brokers in this list), so it would be reasonable to use
on
Thank Tim. I thought maybe the way I phrased the questions came across
offensive or something.
And thanks for the clarification about the polling vs. broadcasting.
I will have to see if we can maybe enable multicast. I don't see the
"backup" property on the discovery transport though and I am not
On Jan 30, 2018 2:20 PM, "pypen" wrote:
Bad day? Relax Tim. Not trying to offend anyone here.
I wasn't intending for the response to come across sharply; sorry that it
did.
It's not about me not wanting to tweak the log4j. I just didn't want to
suppress the TransportDisposedIOException (or Dem
Bad day? Relax Tim. Not trying to offend anyone here.
It's not about me not wanting to tweak the log4j. I just didn't want to
suppress the TransportDisposedIOException (or DemandForwardingBridgeSupport)
if it happens for a different reason.
And I was not clear enough about the previous versions: I
For #1, if I'm reading your log right, it's coming out at INFO, and you
said it used to be WARN. So you're saying we lowered the logging level;
where's the problem?
And either way, I'm not seeing why you're trying to avoid tweaking your
Log4J configuration. You have a non-standard environment (one
Figured out the problem with 2. The client had a network timeout of 30
seconds. Every producer and consumer creates its own connection and session
and that caused the problems. Reducing the timeout solved issue 2.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Hi,
I have a network of 4 brokers, statically configured (). Each broker has
a list if IPs, excluding its own.
It is expected that not all brokers are running at the same time (they can,
but don't have to).
I have (java) clients that run on the same machines as the brokers and
connect to their loca
For anyone who encounters this in the future, the problem was apparently
something the OP configured incorrectly in the authorization plugin, per
the OP's question on SO:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47859636/activemq-network-of-brokers-error-java-lang-securityexception-the-destinatio
I'm not sure it's related, but I see you've disabled advisory messages.
Have you statically included your destinations? If not, you don't actually
have a network of brokers.
Tim
On Dec 17, 2017 2:43 PM, "hfarooqui" wrote:
> Experts,
>
> I have two b
Experts,
I have two brokers configured as part of Netowrk of brokers configuration:
*Broker1*
/
http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core";
brokerName="broker1"
brokerId="1"
dataDirectory="${activemq.data}"
advisorySupport="false"
based on the business logic of our system.
Tim
On Dec 10, 2017 5:13 PM, "Hadrian Zbarcea" wrote:
> Erwin,
>
> The NOB topology is very used, from my experience the most used in the
> past years especially for redundancy and high availability. I regularly
> deploy n
Erwin,
The NOB topology is very used, from my experience the most used in the
past years especially for redundancy and high availability. I regularly
deploy network of brokers with tens of brokers. It could go even higher,
but there's rarely enough traffic to justify that.
The topolo
Hello,
I've implemented ActiveMQ with a distributed application using the
Network-of-Brokers (see
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html).
Now I'm trying to figure out whether Network-of-Brokers is a common pattern;
and on which scale it is actually used with other applic
://stackoverflow.com/questions/32344317/activemq-5-11-network-of-brokers-and-master-slave-group-config
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Let's say I set up a network of brokers, where each "node" is a master/slave
pair sharing a NFS file system. From my research I should set the brokerName
differently on master and slave, but I should set the brokerId the same on
master and slave am I correct?
>From my research
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5290 sounds like it should have
eliminated this issue, but the fact that you're seeing this using MQTT (or
are you using STOMP?) on 5.15.0 means something else is going on.
One question: have you enabled conduitSubscriptions between A and B?
Tim
On Sep 2
Any advance on this topic? I'm facing the same issue on ActiveMQ 5.15 (2017)
and I couldn't find any solution throughout this mailing list.
Thanks in advance,
Márcio
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
Just wanted to confirm the statistics plugin is one-to-one, that is, one
request returns metrics for a single broker, regardless if the request was
sent to topic://ActiveMQ.Statistics.Broker, and all brokers belonged to a
network. We can't seem to get the latter to work, the goal is to send a
singl
l destinations on Broker 3. Otherwise, when
> Application
> > 1
> > > pushes back, Broker 3 would use 100% of its resources for that
> > destination,
> > > right?
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I cannot just copy the destination policies: I need to
> > > determine what percentage of Broker 3's resources will be used by
> > > Application 1 and Application 2 messages.
> > >
> > > Does that sound right?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > > nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-and-destination-policies-
> > > tp4729188p4729601.html
> > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> >
>
shes back, Broker 3 would use 100% of its resources for that
> destination,
> > right?
> >
> > Furthermore, I cannot just copy the destination policies: I need to
> > determine what percentage of Broker 3's resources will be used by
> > Application 1 and Applicati
cation 1
> pushes back, Broker 3 would use 100% of its resources for that destination,
> right?
>
> Furthermore, I cannot just copy the destination policies: I need to
> determine what percentage of Broker 3's resources will be used by
> Application 1 and Application 2 messages.
>
&
ht?
Furthermore, I cannot just copy the destination policies: I need to
determine what percentage of Broker 3's resources will be used by
Application 1 and Application 2 messages.
Does that sound right?
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-br
give
> a recommendation for that particular policy.
>
> Tim
>
> On Aug 2, 2017 3:12 PM, "rth" wrote:
>
> > We currently have a single broker that is configured with several
> > entries (all for topics). We will be a network of
> > brokers.
>
onfigured with several
> entries (all for topics). We will be a network of
> brokers.
>
> My question is this: how should I deal with the
> entries?
> Do they need to be replicated across all brokers' configuration files?
> Across some subset of brokers (say, brokers fro
We currently have a single broker that is configured with several
entries (all for topics). We will be a network of
brokers.
My question is this: how should I deal with the entries?
Do they need to be replicated across all brokers' configuration files?
Across some subset of brokers
27;m not sure whether is makes sense to create a Jira issue for that.
Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchronized-tp4718852p4728365.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
uplex=false, but it's about the static bridge. When
using dynamic bridges as proposed, everything works fine.
Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-static-bridges-tp4727986p4728318.html
Sen
no other way than using dynamic bridges, at least for the one-way
> network
> connectors.
>
> Regards,
> Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-
> static-bridges-tp4727986p4728049.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
other way than using dynamic bridges, at least for the one-way network
connectors.
Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-static-bridges-tp4727986p4728049.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing li
er
containers with 61616 mapped to different ports):
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-static-bridges-tp47279
I have configured network of brokers with ActiveMQ as below,
activemq-central <-> site-a
|<-> site-b
|<-> site-c
|<-> site-d
|<-> site-e
|<
client
process.
Thanks for the detailed description of how you're using the network of
brokers; that clears up my confusion.
Tim
On Apr 25, 2017 8:10 AM, "anoppe" wrote:
> Hi Tim,Thank you for your replies.I've found one bug in our software: We
> didn't used a Pooled
7; messages from the API, and
mq2's responsibility is to process 'new' messages from the API. The
datamodel of those messages are exactly the same, but we choose to split
into separate flows to minimise interference for existing customers.The
reason we introduced the 'network of brokers&#x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - All topics that match the name 'company.*.topic' are duplicated to
>> 'event.stream.topic'
>> - The topic 'data.stream.topic
>
>
>
>
>
> - All topics that match the name 'company.*.topic' are duplicated to
> 'event.stream.topic'
> - The topic 'data.stream.topic' is duplicated to 'event.stream.topic&
h the name 'company.*.topic' are duplicated to
'event.stream.topic'
- The topic 'data.stream.topic' is duplicated to 'event.stream.topic'
- The topic 'alert.triggers.forwarder.topic' is duplicated to
'alert.triggers.topic'.
mq1 and mq2 are
roker 2. --
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers-Connected-but-messages-are-
> not-received-on-second-broker-tp4720116p4720295.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
sends
messages to broker 1, I do not see these messages on broker 2. --
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers-Connected-but-messages-are-not-received-on-second-broker-tp4720116p4720295.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing
tcp level, the connection is there (netstat -an | grep 616):
on mobile side: tcp :45997 :61617 ESTABLISHED
on backoffice side: tcp6 :61617 :45997
ESTABLISHED
Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchroniz
You seem to be expecting your network of brokers to behave like a cluster.
ActiveMQ doesn't support clustering; the closest we come is master/slave
groups, but only one broker is active at a time so that's completely
different. In a network of brokers, each broker is an independent e
tValue;
return rc;
}
private static String arg(String []args, int index, String defaultValue)
{
if( index < args.length )
return args[index];
else
return defaultValue;
}
}
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers-Connected-but-messages-are-not-received-on-second-broker-tp4720116p4720118.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Show the client code.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers-Connected-but-messages-are-not-received-on-second-broker-tp4720116p4720117.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
:
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers-Connected-but-messages-are-not-received-on-second-broker-tp4720116.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list
ck whether the TCP
connection is there at all.
Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchronized-tp4718852p4719762.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
onsole of the backoffice
> broker doesn't show a connection.
>
> Regards,
> Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchronized-
> tp4718852p4719488.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchronized-tp4718852p4719488.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
24.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchronized-tp4718852p4719329.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> physicalName="topic.platform.backofficeToMobile.all"/>
>
>
>
>
> On the backoffice side, there is a simple ssl connector. As already
> mentioned, most of the times it works. Only sometimes, this behavior
> appears. The bad thing is that the mobile broker looks like thinking that
> everything is ok, and after this, it seems like it also doesn't get a
> signal
> any longer that connectivity is lost, so it stays in this status. In the
> Karaf console, activemq:dstat shows that no backoffice consumers are on the
> queues.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jochen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchronized-
> tp4718852p4719226.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
rs are on the
queues.
Best Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-consumers-not-synchronized-tp4718852p4719226.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
1 - 100 of 875 matches
Mail list logo
