I can reproduce this consistently. I even created a bare bones stand-alone java application listener that only logs the message contents to eliminate any transactional variables.
I start each java listener application in a new debug process and set a breakpoint on the log statement (no JMS session is being shared). I use the default KahaDB store and as mentioned before the problem happens even with a single broker (there is no slave broker waiting for a free lock). To reproduce: 1) I push one message on a queue 2) Start 4 listeners. One listener picks it up and a breakpoint is hit on the log output line 3) I start a shutdown sequence of the broker (Ctrl-C or issue shutdown command from Hawtio) 4) All 3 other listener breakpoints get triggered simultaneously, each one having deliveryCount incremented These tests are being run in a 64Bit Windows 7 - Java SE 1.6.0_20. Haven't tested in other environments yet. Raul Kripalani-2 wrote > Can you reproduce it consistently time after time? I wonder if this was a > one-off case and you witnessed a race condition if all 3 competing > consumers connected/handshook exactly at the same time. > > Are they creating a new Session each, or are they sharing a single one? > > Any JMS / XA transactions involved? > > What store are you using? Shared KahaDB? > > Regards, > > *Raúl Kripalani* > Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source > Integration specialist > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:41 AM, gregg < > garlakg@ > > wrote: > >> Don't think that is possible because I have a breakpoint in each >> consumer. >> The delivery counter information was inspected when all consumers were >> paused concurrently in a debug session during consumption. If I don't set >> a >> breakpoint I still get the same problem. >> >> Would have to do some more testing to change the way the message is >> produced >> to potentially isolate the cause. >> >> >> artnaseef wrote >> > Is it possible the listeners are rejecting the message? That could >> > explain the results you are seeing. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Same-message-redelivered-to-multiple-consumers-after-failover-tp4678640p4678674.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Same-message-redelivered-to-multiple-consumers-after-failover-tp4678640p4678896.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
