gt; 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
Pavlovich [mailto:mattr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:38 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Testing Master Slave on Shared File System
Are both volumes mounted with ext4? Does EXT4 have support for distributed lock
sharing? Sounds like one server would mount rw and the
-
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 files
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 t
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 GF
chris.foga...@versiant.com
-Original Message-
From: tbai...@gmail.com [mailto:tbai...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bain
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:56 AM
To: ActiveMQ Users
Subject: Re: Testing Master Slave on Shared File System
Browsing the queue via the web console for the slave
Browsing the queue via the web console for the slave broker should be a
good test; if you're able to do that, the master failed to lock the slave
out of the KahaDB data.
Tim
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Christopher Fogarty <
christopher.foga...@versiant.com> wrote:
> I have the disk a part o
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 t
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-
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
Each node can and does start, but how can I test, or what do I look for to make
sure that file locking is
10 matches
Mail list logo
