I don't have a date, but from what I understand it is getting very close to being released.
Joe http://www.ttmsolutions.com farshad wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > Thanks again for your reply. Do you know when 5.3 is going to be > released? > > -Farshad > > > Joe Fernandez wrote: >> >> Hi Farshad, >> >> You may have encountered the following problem: >> http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2135 >> >> It is a rather nasty problem where messages become stuck in one of the >> NoB's brokers. That is, a broker does not forward the messages to other >> brokers in the NoB that have valid subscriptions. >> >> Not until you connect a consumer to one of the brokers that houses the >> stuck messages, will the broker dispatch the message to the consumer. >> It has to do with subscription management. >> >> There is this patch that addresses the problem, but only for >> 'fully-connected' NoB topologies. >> >> http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/attachment/17800/AMQ-2135-Patch-03182009.patch >> >> If you're using a ring or line topology, the patch won't work and may >> make matters worse. >> >> You may also encounter a situation where some of the brokers’ transport >> threads are parked (stuck) on a Java CountDownLatch object and are thus >> unable to service their respective transport. A transport in this case is >> used to connect two brokers and the message broker assigns a worker >> thread to service that transport. When this occurs, the NoB is >> compromised. Here are some relevant links for this problem. >> >> http://www.nabble.com/Network-connector-failover-problems-td10224971.html#a10275742 >> http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1827 >> >> Our testing indicated that the above 'parked thread' problem only occurs >> with the failover connector. We were never able to reproduce it with the >> static connector. >> >> I would also recommend moving to 5.3 when possible. >> >> Joe >> http://www.ttmsolutions.com >> >> >> farshad wrote: >>> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. So, I set dynamicOnly to "true" and >>> networkTTL to 4. The sender code puts messages in the queue and the >>> receiver code connects and sometimes it gets all the messages and >>> somtimes it gets some of them. I have to reconnect to get the rest of >>> them. Also, if I shut down the broker that the messages were sent thru, >>> no messages can be received. In my activemq.xml I have one broker >>> definition and then copy the same config file into the all broker >>> machines. Should each broker have its own unique broker definition? >>> What is the use of staticallyIncludedQuues? >>> >>> Here's my config file: >>> >>> <destinations> >>> <queue physicalName="Document.QUEUE" /> >>> </destinations> >>> >>> <networkConnector name="myHosts" >>> uri="static://(tcp://host1:61616,tcp://host2:61616,tcp://host3:61616,tcp://host4:61616)"> >>> networkTTL=4 >>> dynamicOnly=true >>> </networkConnector> >>> >>> <transportConnectors> >>> <transportConnector name="openwire" uri="tcp://localhost:61616" >>> discoveryUri="multicast://default"/> >>> </transportConnectors> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> FarshadK >>> >>> >>> Joe Fernandez wrote: >>>> >>>> You should use the static and not failover connector to configure your >>>> network of brokers. Also make sure that you have the appropriate values >>>> assigned to the networkTTL and dynamicOnly parameters. >>>> >>>> http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> http://www.ttmsolutions.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> farshad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have a network of 4 brokers configuration with >>>>> failover://(tcp://host1:61616,tcp://host2:61616,...) defined. My >>>>> first piece of java code connects to one of these hosts (randomly) and >>>>> puts some messages in a queue destination (e.g. Document.QUEUE). A >>>>> second piece of java code connects to another one of these hosts and >>>>> fails to read the messages. Is this expected behaviour? If I connect >>>>> to one host and put messages in a queue and the host goes down what do >>>>> I have to do to receive my messages connecting to another host in the >>>>> network? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you in advance, >>>>> FarshadK >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Question-about-Queue-destinations-in-network-of-brokers-tp25776018p25783882.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
