Re: Failover Question

run(TcpTransport.java:186) >at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619) > > > Shouldn't this exception end up somewhere in the ActiveMQ server code ? > > > Bye, > Daniel > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Gary Tully [mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com] &g

AW: Failover Question

nd up somewhere in the ActiveMQ server code ? Bye, Daniel -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Gary Tully [mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Mai 2010 17:25 An: users@activemq.apache.org Betreff: Re: Failover Question I just had a cursory look at the code and I think the receiveN

Re: Failover Question

I just had a cursory look at the code and I think the receiveNoWait() call may be part of the problem. receiveNoWait does not work well with activemq just after a consumer has been created. It can take some time for the consumer to register and dispatch to occur and it ocurrs async to the receiveN

AW: Failover Question

Hi, here is a JUnit test (see below) I wrote to simulate the crash of a worker and the expected redelivery behavior: You have to replace _connectionProvider.getConnection(queueName); with some code of you own to get you a Connection to the Queue. The CrashingWorker does not commit or rollback the

AW: Failover Question

t- Von: Gary Tully [mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Mai 2010 10:56 An: users@activemq.apache.org Betreff: Re: Failover Question Your first assumption about automatic redelivery is correct. Any unacked message will be redelivered. They may not get redelivered to the same consu

Re: Failover Question

Your first assumption about automatic redelivery is correct. Any unacked message will be redelivered. They may not get redelivered to the same consumer though, any consumer will do from the brokers perspective. The first precondition though is the recognition of the death of the consumers connectio

AW: Failover Question

: Joe Fernandez [mailto:joe.fernan...@ttmsolutions.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Mai 2010 02:47 An: users@activemq.apache.org Betreff: Re: Failover Question The InactivityMonitor should have detected the failed connection. What value did you assign to maxInactivityDuration? By default it is set to

Re: Failover Question

Linux Open Suse 11.1 > > - Connection-URL: > failover://(tcp://masterhost:61616,tcp://slavehost:61616)?randomize=fals > e > > > > > > It would be great if you could share your thoughts on this issue. > > > > Bye, > > Daniel > > > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Failover-Question-tp28696505p28701582.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Failover Question

Hi ActiveMQ Team, in the eclipse open source project SMILA we use ActiveMQ (version 5.3.2) to implement a producer/consumer pattern with JMS. The basic setup is as follows: - the software runs in a cluster of machines (usually between 4 and 16) - we use the Pure Master/Slave

Failover question (hangs appserver)

Hello, We are using activemq 5.2.0. Our webapp runs in tomcat 5. We don't use spring JMS support, however we do configure JMS listener class as a singleton in spring factory. Recently, we configured failover capabilities as jms.broker.url=failover:(tcp://sfltlg-halsg3b1:61616,tcp://sfltlg-hls

Re: ActiveMQ failover question

1616)? wireFormat .maxInactivityDuration =0&initialReconnectDelay=100&randomize=false Thanks for your help. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-question-tp15619364s2354p15619364.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. N

ActiveMQ failover question

or your help. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-question-tp15619364s2354p15619364.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.