I think the record would pile up unacked at the source mirror.
and @Stephen baker: sorry about my mistake on this fix... Why would the upgrade be difficult on 2.27? it's just adding a log4j2.properties.. everything else should be the same. You should probably bring a patched version yourself until we can make a release? I'm thinking we should make a release next week. On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:27 AM Stephen Baker <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> wrote: > > Your patch does resolve the error. Artemis 2.27 looks like it will be a > difficult upgrade, I ended up making a new instance and merging config over. > > I have pasted a trace in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4045 > > What is the impact of this issue? I’m trying to decide whether to advise our > IT team to continue with the planned upgrade or hold off until 2.27. We will > definitely encounter this condition in production. From a surface reading, > possibly a resource leak? > > > > > From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 9:54 PM > To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Mirror compatibility across versions > Notice that main is now using SLF4j / log4j... (in case you manually > upgrade to a snapshot) > > > We are still working the details for an upgrade. > > > if you need to patch your 2.25.0 it's a straight change to make there > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 9:52 PM Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't know how I would test it yet. It's fairly late in the night > > for me.. I will think about it tomorrow. > > > > > > but here is a tentative fix: > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4256 > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 9:30 PM Stephen Baker > > <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > That’s the full output with regular logging levels. I can reproduce at > > > will so I have enabled trace level logging and pasted the result in > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4045 > > > > > > Let’s take further discussion there? > > > > > > From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 9:10 PM > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> > > > Subject: Re: Mirror compatibility across versions > > > is this the actual trace? or you cut some to post here? > > > > > > > > > Just puzzled by skipDelivery calling performAck.. > > > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.protocol.amqp.connect.mirror.AMQPMirrorControllerTarget.lambda$performAck$2(AMQPMirrorControllerTarget.java:377) > > > [artemis-amqp-protocol-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.server.impl.QueueImpl$2.skipDelivery(QueueImpl.java:1203) > > > [artemis-server-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > > > > > > can you post the full stack if this is not it? > > > > > > > > > it definitely needs fixing... I'm investigating it. > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 6:05 PM Stephen Baker > > > <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Having updated both sides to 2.25 I’m seeing this error in the logs, is > > > > it a concern that warrants further investigation? > > > > > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | 2022-10-12 22:01:43,632 ERROR > > > > [org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.server] AMQ224041: Failed to deliver: > > > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: this method requires to be called > > > > within the handler, use the executor > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.protocol.amqp.proton.handler.ProtonHandler.requireHandler(ProtonHandler.java:210) > > > > [artemis-amqp-protocol-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.protocol.amqp.proton.AMQPConnectionContext.requireInHandler(AMQPConnectionContext.java:197) > > > > [artemis-amqp-protocol-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.protocol.amqp.proton.ProtonAbstractReceiver.settle(ProtonAbstractReceiver.java:185) > > > > [artemis-amqp-protocol-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.protocol.amqp.connect.mirror.AMQPMirrorControllerTarget$ACKMessageOperation.run(AMQPMirrorControllerTarget.java:125) > > > > [artemis-amqp-protocol-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.protocol.amqp.connect.mirror.AMQPMirrorControllerTarget.performAck(AMQPMirrorControllerTarget.java:388) > > > > [artemis-amqp-protocol-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.protocol.amqp.connect.mirror.AMQPMirrorControllerTarget.lambda$performAck$2(AMQPMirrorControllerTarget.java:377) > > > > [artemis-amqp-protocol-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.server.impl.QueueImpl$2.skipDelivery(QueueImpl.java:1203) > > > > [artemis-server-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.server.impl.QueueImpl.doInternalPoll(QueueImpl.java:2932) > > > > [artemis-server-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.server.impl.QueueImpl.deliver(QueueImpl.java:2991) > > > > [artemis-server-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.server.impl.QueueImpl$DeliverRunner.run(QueueImpl.java:4250) > > > > [artemis-server-2.25.0.jar:2.25.0] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.utils.actors.OrderedExecutor.doTask(OrderedExecutor.java:56) > > > > [artemis-commons-2.25.0.jar:] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.utils.actors.OrderedExecutor.doTask(OrderedExecutor.java:31) > > > > [artemis-commons-2.25.0.jar:] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.utils.actors.ProcessorBase.executePendingTasks(ProcessorBase.java:67) > > > > [artemis-commons-2.25.0.jar:] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128) > > > > [java.base:] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628) > > > > [java.base:] > > > > artemis-test-artemis-1-m-1 | at > > > > org.apache.activemq.artemis.utils.ActiveMQThreadFactory$1.run(ActiveMQThreadFactory.java:118) > > > > [artemis-commons-2.25.0.jar:] > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Stephen Baker <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> > > > > Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 4:43 PM > > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> > > > > Subject: Re: Mirror compatibility across versions > > > > I set up some docker images in this configuration as a preliminary > > > > step. One oddity: > > > > > > > > Configure 2.25 side not to run the reaper > > > > Send message to 2.25 side > > > > Observe that after expiry the message shows up in the expiry queue on > > > > the 2.20 side, but not on the 2.25 side, the message is removed from > > > > the original queue on both sides. > > > > > > > > If the message is originally sent to the 2.20 side it shows up in both > > > > queues as expected. > > > > > > > > There’s probably a reason for it, but I didn’t expect this change. I > > > > thought that we would continue to see the old bugs until both sides > > > > were updated. > > > > > > > > From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > > Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 3:24 PM > > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> > > > > Subject: Re: Mirror compatibility across versions > > > > Yeah.. something like that... not necessarily in there though. but a > > > > similar test. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 1:44 PM Stephen Baker > > > > <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I agree based on a cursory reading of that patch. The extra > > > > > ackReason defaults to normal in one direction and isn’t read in the > > > > > other direction. Killed, replaced, and expired being interpreted as > > > > > normal just means that the 2.20 bugs will persist until both sides > > > > > are updated. > > > > > > > > > > I’ll test it out with different version docker containers. I suppose > > > > > as far as writing tests you mean something like the > > > > > MultiVersionReplicaTest. > > > > > > > > > > Stephen E. Baker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > > > Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:59 PM > > > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> > > > > > Subject: Re: Mirror compatibility across versions > > > > > In theory it should work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only change that might break compatibility is > > > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/commit/68f6d8263d8c795722805f0e4d6939e7a8b9ed48 > > > > > which is ARTEMIS-3743 / ARTEMIS-3766 Use ACKReason on Mirror to > > > > > determine target operations and fixing Delivering statistics on Mirror > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried to not break compatibility, but I just realized we should add > > > > > a test to validate compatibility between mirrors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, I will say it should be compatible, but I would test it before > > > > > doing it in the real system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you are willing to contribute to a compatibility test :) > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:06 AM Stephen Baker > > > > > <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We are planning our production upgrade from 2.20 to 2.25. These > > > > > > upgrades involve a loss of service in the window between stopping > > > > > > the live and when the backup instance becomes ready to process > > > > > > messages. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering if the mirror protocol is expected to be compatible > > > > > > between those versions. If so we could upgrade our cold site, and > > > > > > then wait for a planned failover to avoid any additional down time. > > > > > > I know that quite a bit of work was done by Clebert in 2.24 so I > > > > > > was hoping he could weigh in. > > > > > > > > > > > > Stephen E Baker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > [EXTERNAL]: This email originated from outside of Rave Mobile Safety. > > > > > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the > > > > > sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > [EXTERNAL]: This email originated from outside of Rave Mobile Safety. > > > > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender > > > > and know the content is safe. > > > > [EXTERNAL]: This email originated from outside of Rave Mobile Safety. > > > > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender > > > > and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > [EXTERNAL]: This email originated from outside of Rave Mobile Safety. Do > > > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > > > know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > [EXTERNAL]: This email originated from outside of Rave Mobile Safety. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. -- Clebert Suconic
