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 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 that > both nodes when started are doing what they should, which is one has a > locked access and the other is in a sort of stand by until the lock is > released. > > Hope this makes sense. > > Chris Fogarty > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:37 PM -0700, "Matt Pavlovich" < > mattr...@gmail.com<mailto:mattr...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 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-filesystems-don't-do-locking-properly problem. > > -Matt > > On 4/28/16 12:34 PM, Christopher Fogarty wrote: > > 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 > > > > <persistenceAdapter> > > <kahaDB directory="/sharedFileSystem/sharedBrokerData"/> > > </persistenceAdapter> > > > > Each node can and does start, but how can I test, or what do I look for > to make sure that file locking is actually working as described in the > http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html > document. Before putting this into production, I would feel a lot better > knowing that only one of the two nodes is capable of accessing the kahadb. > > > > > > Chris Fogarty > > > > VP, System Engineering > > Versiant Corporation > > 3700 Arco Corporate Drive > > Suite 350 > > Charlotte, NC 28273 > > Office: (704) 831-3905 | Mobile: (704) 763-3333 > > > > chris.foga...@versiant.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christopher Fogarty > > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:02 AM > > To: 'users@activemq.apache.org' <users@activemq.apache.org> > > Subject: RE: Running ActiveMQ Broker as different username unable to > connect via web admin console > > > > What Platform? Do you have a firewall running > > > > Chris Fogarty > > > > VP, System Engineering > > Versiant Corporation > > 3700 Arco Corporate Drive > > Suite 350 > > Charlotte, NC 28273 > > Office: (704) 831-3905 | Mobile: (704) 763-3333 > > > > chris.foga...@versiant.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jboss [mailto:jb...@bcidaho.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:16 AM > > To: users@activemq.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Running ActiveMQ Broker as different username unable to > connect via web admin console > > > > The web console does not come up at all. The error that the Chrome > gives is > > "Connection Refused". Does not even get to the point of asking for > username/password. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Running-ActiveMQ-Broker-as-different-username-unable-to-connect-via-web-admin-console-tp4711175p4711280.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
