Tim,
Thanks for chiming in. As I am testing the configuration to determine
deployment architecture and configuration, there are currently no
clients available that are using this topology. I am trying to
understand the behavior so can make right choices for deployment. Having
said that, I was using the consumer supplied in the "examples" directory
of distribution download.
This is what I have used for testing,
ant consumer
-Durl=failover:'(tcp://activemq3.localtest.com:61616)?randomize=false&priorityBackup=true'
-Dtopic=false -Dsubject=foo.bar
Here is the transportConnector config,
<transportConnector name="openwire"
uri="tcp://0.0.0.0:61616?maximumConnections=1000&wireFormat.maxFrameSize=104857600"
updateClusterClients="true" rebalanceClusterClients="true"
updateClusterClientsOnRemove="true" />
Thanks
On 12/11/15 6:50 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
I don't think priorityBackup=true is what you want; in fact, the note in
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html on
rebalanceClusterClients explicitly points out that the two features
interfere with each other.
Do you have randomize=true on your client URI? If not, I think you should.
Do you have a minimal test case (broker configs, client code, etc.) that
you could package up so someone could step through the code in a debugger
and see why it's doing what it's doing? Because it seems strange that it
would be failing for you when there's a unit test (
https://github.com/apache/activemq/blob/15affd0755deeebcdc670039ec1d19fefe0d8c65/activemq-unit-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/transport/failover/TwoBrokerFailoverClusterTest.java)
that should be proving that exactly this scenario works.
Tim
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Rallavagu <rallav...@gmail.com> wrote:
Adding "priorityBackup=true" on client seem to work as in falling back to
original node once it is back to service. Thanks.
On 12/9/15 10:30 PM, Tim Bain wrote:
Also, did you see the "Update" paragraph at the bottom of
http://bsnyderblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-features-in-activemq-54-automatic.html
?
Based on that paragraph, I think you'd need to set
updateClusterClientsOnRemove="true" to get the behavior you're looking for
(clients reconnecting when a broker comes back up). Without that, I
believe you'll only get updates when a **new** broker is started, not when
one is simply restarted.
Tim
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
Are you saying that you're using the priorityBackup=true option, or not?
That wasn't clear (to me) from what you wrote.
Tim
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Rallavagu <rallav...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you are referring "priorityBackup=true" then I have only one URL with
master/slave and NoB and expect the "updateClusterClients" to work. One
more item that I have noticed is that, when two clients are connected to
one of the clusters, when the third client is attempting to connect to
the
same cluster, it is actually forwarded to connect to other cluster
(which
has no clients at that time).
On 12/9/15 6:21 PM, Basmajian, Raffi wrote:
I don't believe client failback would work with those settings alone,
Read section titled "More information" here
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Rallavagu [mailto:rallav...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:40 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: NoB and Load Balancing [ EXTERNAL ]
I am using the example that are shipped with ActiveMQ. Here is the
example,
/opt/activemq/apache-ant-1.9.6/bin/ant consumer -Durl=failover:'(tcp://
activemq2.localtest.net:61616)' -Dtopic=false -Dsubject=foo.bar
On 12/9/15 4:19 PM, Basmajian, Raffi wrote:
Show the client-side configuration you're using.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rallavagu [mailto:rallav...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 7:04 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: NoB and Load Balancing [ EXTERNAL ]
ActiveMQ 5.12.1
Setup Network of Brokers between two clusters of Master/Slave brokers.
With reference to following links,
http://bsnyderblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-features-in-activemq-54-au
tomatic.html
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
Configured "updateClusterClients" and "rebalanceClusterClients" to
achieve load balancing. Used a test case as below.
1. connect client 1 to cluster 1
2. connect client 2 to cluster 2
3. shutdown cluster 1. Now, client 1 is automatically connected to
cluster 2.
4. started cluster 1 back.
Was expecting client 1 to re-connect to cluster 1 and balance the
load.
But, I do not see that happening. Is this the right expectation? Also,
I have noticed that some times if two clients are connecting to one
of the
clusters, they are automatically re-connected to other cluster which
is a
desirable behavior. Essentially, Wondering if I can rely one those
configuration parameters for load balancing. Thanks.
This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary,
privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the
person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the
intended
recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended
recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by
return
e-mail and delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole
discretion,
monitor, review, retain and/or disclose the content of all email
communications.
