Great to hear! I hope the test goes well. Thanks for verifying this. Yeah, it won't handle network outages. That's where failover comes in (scheduled for 1.1). However, this should keep any firewalls or routers from aggressively disconnecting the sockets.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Bryan Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2.5 hours of inactivity. I just sent a message through and the service is > still responding. That's a good sign, but I'll let it run overnight to be > sure. I'm still not convinced it will survive more drastic network > outages, > but this appears to be a significant step in the right direction!! :) > Bryan > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Bryan Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Cool! I've updated updated my local NMS library and am currently running > a > > test. I'll let you know in a few hours how it turns out. > > Thanks, > > Bryan > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Jim Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> FYI, the NMS trunk now has the keep alive support implemented. You can > >> turn > >> it on with the URI parameter "wireFormat.MaxInactivityDuration=nnnn" and > >> "wireFormat.MaxInactivityDurationInitialDelay=nnnn" where 'n' equals the > >> number of milliseconds. The initial delay option is optional and not > >> required to be used at the same time. It should operate just like the > >> Java > >> client. I observed that the server will send a KeepAliveInfo command to > >> the > >> client periodically. The client then responds back. This should keep > the > >> socket connection alive even when no messages are flowing. I would be > >> willing to bet that this is what the two ActiveMQ servers are doing to > >> each > >> other, which is why that solution worked for you. > >> > >> Best, > >> Jim > >> >
