Hi,
Thanks, that does indeed fix the problem. I misunderstood your first
reply, since I assumed that
BrokerService.addConnector(TransportConnector connector);
would work similarly to
BrokerService.addConnector(String bindAddress);
>From the source code I can see that addConnector(String bindAddress)
immediately opens a socket, while addConnector(TransportConnector
connector) wont until BrokerService.start() is called (and then only
if it's the master). Maybe this info could be added to the embedded
broker page and/or the javadocs?
Thanks for your help,
Rasmus
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Gary Tully [via ActiveMQ]
<ml-node+3411416-360199200-223...@n4.nabble.com> wrote:
> using:
> BrokerService broker = new BrokerService();
> TransportConnector connector = new TransportConnector();
> connector.setUri(new URI("tcp://localhost:" + port));
> broker.addConnector(connector);
>
> and your test works as expected for me. The slave broker blocks on the
> store lock acquisition and does not listen on its port till its gets
> the store lock.
>
> On 23 March 2011 08:45, rasmusback <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Gary,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Gary Tully [via ActiveMQ]
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> The test needs some mods to ensure that the slave broker listen port
>>> is only started when the broker becomes the baster.
>>>
>>> In code, the addition of the transportConnector needs to be:
>>>
>>> // lazy create transport connector on start completion
>>> TransportConnector connector = new TransportConnector();
>>> connector.setUri(new URI("tcp://localhost:" + listenPort));
>>> broker.addConnector(connector);
>>
>> Ok, so I need to add a check to the broker initialization before
>> adding the connector. There's a waitUntilStarted method in
>> BrokerService, is this the one to use? A quick test with
>>
>> broker.start();
>> broker.waitUntilStarted();
>> broker.addConnector("tcp://localhost:"+port);
>>
>> did not make the test pass. I'm looking at the embedded broker FAQ
>> page and the BrokerService API documentation, but it doesn't provide
>> much help for this scenario.
>>
>>> In cases where failover needs to abort you can configure the
>>> maxReconnectAttempts to be > 0 and it will fail with an exception
>>> after X attempts.
>>
>> Yep, I tried to keep the amount of options to a minimum in the test
>> case. In the case I'm describing there is a broker up and running, the
>> failover transport just doesn't get around to connecting to it.
>>
>>> On 22 March 2011 14:31, rasmusback <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm using the shared file system, master slave setup with two brokers on
>>>> separate servers. My clients are configured to use the failover
>>>> transport
>>>> with a URL like this:
>>>> failover://(tcp://broker1:61616,tcp://broker2:61616)?randomize=false.
>>>> I've
>>>> noticed that the order of the brokers in the failover URL seems to be
>>>> significant. If I start broker2 before broker1, so that broker2 becomes
>>>> the
>>>> master and broker1 the slave, clients will get stuck in a reconnect loop
>>>> where they keep trying to connect to broker1.
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a junit test case which exhibits the same behavior as my
>>>> setup.
>>>> If the startup order of the brokers is different from their order in the
>>>> failover URL, the test will timeout. When the order is the same, the
>>>> test
>>>> will pass.
>>>>
>>>> The slave broker opens a socket, so a tcp connection is possible to it
>>>> even
>>>> though the broker functionality isn't enabled. This might be what is
>>>> confusing the failover transport.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure if my broker configuration is incorrect or if this is
>>>> a
>>>> bug (or feature) in a master slave setup, so any help is much
>>>> appreciated.
>>>> I'm using ActiveMQ 5.4.2 and spring-jms 2.5.5.
>>>>
>>>> Rasmus
>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n3396540/FailoverTest.java
>>>> FailoverTest.java
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>
>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Clients-can-get-stuck-in-a-reconnect-loop-with-master-slave-brokers-tp3396540p3396540.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://blog.garytully.com
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>>> below:
>>>
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Clients-can-get-stuck-in-a-reconnect-loop-with-master-slave-brokers-tp3396540p3396678.html
>>> To unsubscribe from Clients can get stuck in a reconnect loop with
>>> master-slave brokers, click here.
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Clients-can-get-stuck-in-a-reconnect-loop-with-master-slave-brokers-tp3396540p3398869.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
> http://blog.garytully.com
> http://fusesource.com
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Clients-can-get-stuck-in-a-reconnect-loop-with-master-slave-brokers-tp3396540p3411416.html
> To unsubscribe from Clients can get stuck in a reconnect loop with
> master-slave brokers, click here.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Clients-can-get-stuck-in-a-reconnect-loop-with-master-slave-brokers-tp3396540p3414907.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
