Matt, I will switch to GFS and let you know. I really appreciate.
Chris Fogarty VP, System Engineering Versiant Corporation 3700 Arco Corporate Drive Suite 350 Charlotte, NC 28273 Office: (704) 831-3905 | Mobile: (704) 763-3333 chris.foga...@versiant.com -----Original Message----- From: Matt Pavlovich [mailto:mattr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:38 AM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Testing Master Slave on Shared File System Are both volumes mounted with ext4? Does EXT4 have support for distributed lock sharing? Sounds like one server would mount rw and the other would be mounted ro and there aren't any shared locks. I'm not as current on the latest EXT4 features, but do know a cluster-aware filesystem such as GFSv2 is designed for this type of setup. -Matt On 4/28/16 3:14 PM, Christopher Fogarty wrote: > I have the disk a part of its on vggroup and an lv carved out of that with > ext 4 file system on it. This is mounted on both systems and I am able to > start active mq fine. But would feel a lot better validating that only one of > the two nodes actually has a lock. I would love even more to verify that both > nodes when started are doing what they should, which is one has a locked > access and the other is in a sort of stand by until the lock is released. > > Hope this makes sense. > > Chris Fogarty > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:37 PM -0700, "Matt Pavlovich" > <mattr...@gmail.com<mailto:mattr...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Chris- > > What file system are you using to share the mount? The filesystem > would need to support distributed locking (many "shareable > filesystems" don't do this properly. > > The other approach is to use the shared filesystem for KahaDB and a > database lease-locker to work around the > most-shared-filesystems-don't-do-locking-properly problem. > > -Matt > > On 4/28/16 12:34 PM, Christopher Fogarty wrote: >> I have set up two servers: >> >> Both CENTOS with a shared SAN disk mounted and active on both nodes. >> >> I have set up ActiveMQ 5.6 >> >> I am able to start each with the following configuration >> >> <persistenceAdapter> >> <kahaDB directory="/sharedFileSystem/sharedBrokerData"/> >> </persistenceAdapter> >> >> Each node can and does start, but how can I test, or what do I look for to >> make sure that file locking is actually working as described in the >> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html document. >> Before putting this into production, I would feel a lot better knowing that >> only one of the two nodes is capable of accessing the kahadb. >> >> >> Chris Fogarty >> >> VP, System Engineering >> Versiant Corporation >> 3700 Arco Corporate Drive >> Suite 350 >> Charlotte, NC 28273 >> Office: (704) 831-3905 | Mobile: (704) 763-3333 >> >> chris.foga...@versiant.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christopher Fogarty >> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:02 AM >> To: 'users@activemq.apache.org' <users@activemq.apache.org> >> Subject: RE: Running ActiveMQ Broker as different username unable to >> connect via web admin console >> >> What Platform? Do you have a firewall running >> >> Chris Fogarty >> >> VP, System Engineering >> Versiant Corporation >> 3700 Arco Corporate Drive >> Suite 350 >> Charlotte, NC 28273 >> Office: (704) 831-3905 | Mobile: (704) 763-3333 >> >> chris.foga...@versiant.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: jboss [mailto:jb...@bcidaho.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:16 AM >> To: users@activemq.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Running ActiveMQ Broker as different username unable to >> connect via web admin console >> >> The web console does not come up at all. The error that the Chrome gives is >> "Connection Refused". Does not even get to the point of asking for >> username/password. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Running-ActiveMQ-Broker-as-diff >> erent-username-unable-to-connect-via-web-admin-console-tp4711175p4711 >> 280.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >
