[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5549?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14298410#comment-14298410
]
Heikki Manninen edited comment on AMQ-5549 at 1/30/15 9:36 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bit hesitant on using soft mounts unless ActiveMQ explicitly requires
them. NetApp and others always advice against using soft mounts with NFSv4.
Problem we're having is not with the broker failover but with what happens if
the shared storage fails (both brokers lose the connection) and how the brokers
recover from it after the NFSv4 lock lease has expired.
Have you tested your setup with failing the NFS server connection or killing
the server ungracefully? For me soft mounts only made the situation worse
(which kind of makes sense).
Here's some other issues around the subject (for those with RHN access):
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1195703
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/478053
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/382283
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ENTMQ-391
was (Author: heikki_m):
I'm a bit hesitant on using soft mounts unless ActiveMQ explicitly requires
them. NetApp and others always advice against using soft mounts with NFSv4.
Problem we're having is not with the broker failover but with what happens if
the shared storage fails (both brokers lose the connection) and how the brokers
recover from it after the NFSv4 lock lease has expired.
Have you tested your setup with failing the NFS server connection or killing
the server ungracefully? For me soft mounts only made the situation worse
(which kind of makes sense).
> Shared Filesystem Master/Slave using NFSv4 allows both brokers become active
> at the same time
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMQ-5549
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5549
> Project: ActiveMQ
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Broker, Message Store
> Affects Versions: 5.10.1
> Environment: - CentOS Linux 6
> - OpenJDK 1.7
> - ActiveMQ 5.10.1
> Reporter: Heikki Manninen
> Priority: Critical
>
> Identical ActiveMQ master and slave brokers are installed on CentOS Linux 6
> virtual machines. There is a third virtual machine (also CentOS 6) providing
> an NFSv4 share for the brokers KahaDB.
> Both brokers are started and the master broker acquires file lock on the lock
> file and the slave broker sits in a loop and waits for a lock as expected.
> Also changing brokers work as expected.
> Once the network connection of the NFS server is disconnected both master and
> slave NFS mounts block and slave broker stops logging file lock re-tries.
> After a short while after bringing the network connection back the mounts
> come back and the slave broker is able to acquire the lock simultaneously.
> Both brokers accept client connections.
> In this situation it is also possible to stop and start both individual
> brokers many times and they are always able to acquire the lock even if the
> other one is already running. Only after stopping both brokers and starting
> them again is the situation back to normal.
> * NFS server:
> ** CentOS Linux 6
> ** NFS v4 export options: rw,sync
> ** NFS v4 grace time 45 seconds
> ** NFS v4 lease time 10 seconds
> * NFS client:
> ** CentOS Linux 6
> ** NFS mount options: nfsvers=4,proto=tcp,hard,wsize=65536,rsize=65536
> * ActiveMQ configuration (otherwise default):
> {code:xml}
> <persistenceAdapter>
> <kahaDB directory="${activemq.data}/kahadb">
> <locker>
> <shared-file-locker lockAcquireSleepInterval="1000"/>
> </locker>
> </kahaDB>
> </persistenceAdapter>
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
