Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

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

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

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

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

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

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

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: > >

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

Thanks, in advance, for any info. Very interesting. thanks for sharing. รวดเร็ว ฉับไว รู้ลึก รู้จริง เรื่องฟุตบอลได้ที่นี่ ผลบอลสด -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-topology-issue-BUG-tp469567

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

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-tp4695677p4697985.

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

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: - Failure #1 is that when an NFS failure occurs, the master

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

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

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

Hi Tim First we had hard NFS mounts (seems to be a common recommendation for NFS). When the NFS connection was interrupted for some minutes (more than the NFS lock timeout), the former slave broker became master as soon as the NFS connection was ok again. In contrast the former master broker *neve

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

Stephan, can you describe which NFS settings resulted in which behavior? On Jun 12, 2015 8:34 AM, "Stephan Burkard" wrote: > Anuj > > Have a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5549 > > You cannot avoid to have either two or zero master-brokers online during a > failover. The questi

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

Anuj Have a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5549 You cannot avoid to have either two or zero master-brokers online during a failover. The question is how long this situation lasts (see Arthur Naseef's comment on AMQ-5549). In my failover-tests with NFS shared storage I was able

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

An NFS problem was the first thing I thought of when I saw out-of-order log lines, especially since you've had that problem before. And this outage lasted for over two minutes (which doesn't count as "slow" in my book; that's "unavailable" or "down" to me), which is pretty crazy; hopefully your op

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

Hi, I got the 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 tra

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

Are the log lines actually out of order in the file itself, or did you reorder them when posting this question? On Apr 27, 2015 1:54 AM, "khandelwalanuj" wrote: > And even in master broker's log, there were no activity for the same time.. > > What could cause this ? > > started. > [20150425 08:03

Re: ActiveMQ master-slave topology issue[BUG]

And even in master broker's log, there were no activity for the same time.. What could cause this ? started. [20150425 08:03:19.893 EDT (ActiveMQ Journal Checkpoint Worker) org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.MessageDatabase#checkpointUpdate 1517 DEBUG] - Checkpoint started. [20150425 08:03:19.89