Guys,

We are currently testing JBoss 4.0.1 with clustering, and so far we only have 
one issue left; long-running transactions.

It is not an option to avoid long-running transactions in our set-up 
unfortunately. All the long-running transactions runs in batch-mode, and some 
of them are really long! 5+ minutes at least.

Enough of the blabla talk, and on with the actual problem.

Set-up:
Env: 
  2 (some intstallations 4)*Linux RH Enterprise
  JBoss 4.0.1
  <a lot of other stuff like Apache, load directors, firewalls etc..)>

Client comnnect: HAJNDI:1100

Suppose we have the 2*node setup
Server A 
Server B

Client connects to cluster -----> Server A wins
Server A:
   - starts to run the batch
   - Breaks down
Server B:
   - Get the request from cluster ----> restarts the batch
   - Server A is restarted ---> part of the cluster
   - Server B breaks down
And now----> client fails! ---> must restart batch from client
This only happens with long-running tx.

So it looks like the servers in the cluster are chained in a linked-list sort 
of way, and not a circular list. 

Is it possible to solve this issue by tweaking some configs, or must the client 
be re-written to accept such behaviour from Jboss, even if JBoss runs in 
clustered mode?

One obvious solution would be add more nodes to the 2*nodes configuration, but 
that is not entirely up to us unfortunately...



View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3866461#3866461

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3866461


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
JBoss-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user

Reply via email to