FYI - patchfile submitted. https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1511
Joe Goto www.ttmsolutions.com for a free ActiveMQ user guide toxicafunk wrote: > > That'll be great. > > Thx, > Eric > > ttmdev wrote: >> I'm testing out a patch. If all goes well, I'll submit it in the next day >> or >> so... >> >> Joe >> Goto www.ttmsolutions.com for a free ActiveMQ user guide >> >> >> >> toxicafunk wrote: >>> This seems to be exactly the problem. I will try the shared master/slave >>> configuration but is this bug fixable and if so when will a fix be >>> ready? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Eric >>> >>> Joe Fernandez wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM >>>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org >>>>> Subject: Re: Consumers not always being released >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Mar 2008, at 19:55, Eric Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mike Miljour wrote: >>>>>>> After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration >>>>>>> issue, >>>>>>> which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> helped if i had included my configuration as well!) We had set the >>>>>>> value >>>>>>> for broker name differently in our two running instances of >>>>>>> ActiveMQ. Doing >>>>>>> this caused the ActiveMQs to act as though they were load balancing >>>>>>> instead >>>>>>> of acting as Master and slave (which was our intent). Suggested >>>>>>> documentation changes:In the schema reference for brokerName, >>>>>>> change the description from: Sets the name of this broker; which >>>>>>> must be >>>>>>> unique in the network >>>>>>> to: >>>>>>> Sets the name of this broker; which must be unique in the network, >>>>>>> except >>>>>>> for master-slave configurations, where it must be the same >>>>>>> Also, in the master slave shared file system documentation, include >>>>>>> a note >>>>>>> stating that the WebConsole will not load for the slave until it >>>>>>> becomes the >>>>>>> master if the setup is done correctly. Also mention that the value >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> brokerName must be the same for the master and all slaves. >>>>>> What does "if the setup is done correctly" means? Documentation >>>>>> states: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Whilst a Slave is actively connected to the Master - it does not >>>>>> allow or start any network or transport connectors, it's sole >>>>>> purpose is to duplicate the state of the master." >>>>>> >>>>>> I am using the same name on both master and slave, if I try to >>>>>> consume from the slave while the master is active it doesn't consume >>>>>> messages, which is good. But if I produce against the Slave it >>>>>> accepts messages, it doesn't rely them to the consumers but it does >>>>>> accepts them. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with this is if there were a network problem and a >>>>>> producer connects to a Slave while the master is active, while the >>>>>> failover transport has some properties such as maxReconnectAttempts, >>>>>> maxReconnectDelay, etc. they seem to have effect if both Master and >>>>>> Slave fail (I'm referring to a Pure Master-Slave conf). Any ideas? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thx, >>>>>> Eric >>>>> That's odd - a Salve doesn't start its transport connectors until the >>>>> master dies >>>> With a 'shared' master/slave configuration, the slave runs as >>>> documented >>>> (i.e., keeps its transports closed while connected to the master). >>>> However, >>>> in a 'pure' master/slave configuration, the slave opens its transports >>>> and >>>> accepts connection requests while connected to the master. See the >>>> following >>>> JIRA. >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1511 >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Rob >>>>> >>>>> http://open.iona.com/ -Enterprise Open Integration >>>>> http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/ >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Consumers-not-always-being-released-tp15818936s2354p16039191.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
