er but I guess
>> the
>> access via JNI may be less optimal than using an embedded Java (or Scala)
>> engine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686583.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
; --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686583.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
access via JNI may be less optimal than using an embedded Java (or Scala)
engine.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686583.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at
essage in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686580.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
that and "dump" the messages there rather than in the log file.
I will run some more tests by changing the GC to G1 hopefully avoiding a
full GC and the demotion of the broker to slave forcing a failover.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-B
going on, but it appears that something is
> wrong with the replicated LevelDB which needs more investigation.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686548.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
oing on, but it appears that something is
wrong with the replicated LevelDB which needs more investigation.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686548.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User maili
is that it is likely to
> be
> a network problem and not an issue within ActiveMQ.
>
> I will follow-up in case the issue shows up again.
>
> Until then, sorry for potentially raising a false alarm.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2
raising a false alarm.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686492.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
my original post for brevity)
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686488.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
en within 10
> seconds because my message listener has an internal timeout of 10 seconds.
> I have double and triple-checked the configuration and everything looks ok.
> Also, this doesn't happen in case both producer and consumer connect to the
> same cluster, e.g. amq1 or amq4. So, the individual cluster seem to work.
> The issue only seem to appear when transmitting messages between clusters
> in
> a network of broker.
>
> Any idea if this is a bug or just a SUE (stupid user error). :)
>
> -Uli
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
bug or just a SUE (stupid user error). :)
-Uli
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
12 matches
Mail list logo