Great, I'll try it out and let you know.
Thx,
Eric
ttmdev wrote:
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/
