Chris - Most of the implementations I’ve seen have used NFS, but it’s needs to be NFSv4 to get the right locking behavior.
I’ve run this type of setup in a VM environment as well, but we didn’t use a VM for the NFS server the client had an enterprise NFS solution so we used that. Also, I know some SANs will export NFS natively. > On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Christopher Fogarty > <christopher.foga...@versiant.com> wrote: > > Quinn > > Thanks. I could use NFS, but the master slave shared docs (very Spartan) > indicated SAN. If ext4 is not the proper filesystem. What should I use? I > could use NFS, but I was concerned over performance. Also, NFS in a VM > environment would require a third server? > > Node 1 > Node 2 > NFS server (I would not think it would be prudent to use nfs from one of the > two nodes?) > > 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: Quinn Stevenson [mailto:qu...@pronoia-solutions.com] > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:45 AM > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: Testing Master Slave on Shared File System > > I've done quite a bit of master/slave setups - they've never been an issue as > long as I had a filesystem that supported locking. I've used NFSv4 and GFSv2 > for these setups. > > If I'm reading this correctly, you've setup a volume on a SAN and mounted it > on both systems as an ext4 filesystem. If that's the case, I think that is > your issue - ext4 is not a shared filesystem and it isn't cluster aware. > > Can you try using NFSv4? > >> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:37 AM, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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-dif >>>> ferent-username-unable-to-connect-via-web-admin-console-tp4711175p47 >>>> 11280.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at >>>> Nabble.com. >>> >> >
