I'm testing out a patch. If all goes well, I'll submit it in the next day or so...
Joe Goto www.ttmsolutions.com for a free ActiveMQ user guide toxicafunk wrote: > > This seems to be exactly the problem. I will try the shared master/slave > configuration but is this bug fixable and if so when will a fix be ready? > > Thanks, > Eric > > Joe Fernandez wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM >>> To: users@activemq.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Consumers not always being released >>> >>> >>> On 11 Mar 2008, at 19:55, Eric Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Mike Miljour wrote: >>>>> After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration >>>>> issue, >>>>> which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might >>>>> have >>>>> helped if i had included my configuration as well!) We had set the >>>>> value >>>>> for broker name differently in our two running instances of >>>>> ActiveMQ. Doing >>>>> this caused the ActiveMQs to act as though they were load balancing >>>>> instead >>>>> of acting as Master and slave (which was our intent). Suggested >>>>> documentation changes:In the schema reference for brokerName, >>>>> change the description from: Sets the name of this broker; which >>>>> must be >>>>> unique in the network >>>>> to: >>>>> Sets the name of this broker; which must be unique in the network, >>>>> except >>>>> for master-slave configurations, where it must be the same >>>>> Also, in the master slave shared file system documentation, include >>>>> a note >>>>> stating that the WebConsole will not load for the slave until it >>>>> becomes the >>>>> master if the setup is done correctly. Also mention that the value >>>>> for >>>>> brokerName must be the same for the master and all slaves. >>>> What does "if the setup is done correctly" means? Documentation >>>> states: >>>> >>>> "Whilst a Slave is actively connected to the Master - it does not >>>> allow or start any network or transport connectors, it's sole >>>> purpose is to duplicate the state of the master." >>>> >>>> I am using the same name on both master and slave, if I try to >>>> consume from the slave while the master is active it doesn't consume >>>> messages, which is good. But if I produce against the Slave it >>>> accepts messages, it doesn't rely them to the consumers but it does >>>> accepts them. >>>> >>>> The problem with this is if there were a network problem and a >>>> producer connects to a Slave while the master is active, while the >>>> failover transport has some properties such as maxReconnectAttempts, >>>> maxReconnectDelay, etc. they seem to have effect if both Master and >>>> Slave fail (I'm referring to a Pure Master-Slave conf). Any ideas? >>>> >>>> Thx, >>>> Eric >>> That's odd - a Salve doesn't start its transport connectors until the >>> master dies >> >> With a 'shared' master/slave configuration, the slave runs as documented >> (i.e., keeps its transports closed while connected to the master). >> However, >> in a 'pure' master/slave configuration, the slave opens its transports >> and >> accepts connection requests while connected to the master. See the >> following >> JIRA. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1511 >> >> Joe >> >>> >>> >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> http://open.iona.com/ -Enterprise Open Integration >>> http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/ >>> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Consumers-not-always-being-released-tp15818936s2354p16025545.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
