I'm not sure rather this solution can be used in your case. If you want to
use a primary / secondary db, you can normally specify them in the driver
configuration:
<bean id="mssql-ds" class="org.apache.commons.dbcp.BasicDataSource"
destroy-method="close">
<property name="driverClassName"
value="com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerDriver"/>
<property name="url"
value="jdbc:sqlserver://PRINCIPALDBSERVER;databaseName=activemq;instanceName=PRINCIPAL;user=activemq;password=activemq;failoverPartner=MIRRORDBSERVER\MIRROR"/>
</bean>
This is the configuration for mysql for eg.
In your case, your primary and secondary db have the same IP. Maybe you can
consider this solution? :)
On 14 April 2010 01:33, icfantv <adam.gor...@readytalk.com> wrote:
>
> We learned the hard way that using ActiveMQ with a database store doesn't
> play nicely with vacuums in that ActiveMQ uses open transactions to "lock"
> the relevant tables so secondary ActiveMQ servers wait to take over should
> the primary ActiveMQ server fail. The open transaction causes vacuums to
> never finish - very bad on production databases.
>
> Learning from our mistakes, we set up a separate database server for use
> solely by ActiveMQ. Now ActiveMQ can have open transactions to its heart's
> content and we don't care because we don't need to vacuum these
> tables...much, if ever.
>
> The problem we are facing now is that we run the ActiveMQ database server
> in
> a primary/secondary configuration such that if the primary fails, the
> secondary server gets the IP address of the primary and in theory, the
> service corrects itself. However, ActiveMQ also doesn't appear to like
> having it's database connection ripped out from underneath it and instead
> of
> failing gracefully, it pukes and while the process still runs, it no longer
> accepts connections from ActiveMQ clients. We have to physically kill the
> ActiveMQ process and restart it.
>
> Does anyone have a solution whereby we can use primary/failover database
> servers in conjunction with ActiveMQ such that ActiveMQ can recover without
> user intervention? We are currently using ActiveMQ 5.1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --adam
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Running-ActiveMQ-and-having-a-database-failover-tp28233397p28233397.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Sebastien Rodriguez
