You should test the behavior both when you kill the broker (kill -9 or equivalent) and when you stop the broker (via the shutdown script). You may see different behavior between a hard kill and a clean shutdown...
On Aug 10, 2016 7:04 PM, "davidyce" <ye...@ncs.com.sg> wrote: > hi Tim > thank you for your response. we tried the setting you recommended and we > did not face that db lock issue. we are trying out both situations in > stages first by means of shutting down the entire server. then the second > stage is by means of killing activemq process. currently we are still at > stage 1. > our purpose is to transport messages across 3 tier architecture (web, app, > database) to ensure data consistency and integrity. the rate of messages > could be up to 1000 messages per second. > we are looking forward to activemq and hope we could get continual support. > > many thanks > > Sent with AquaMail for Android > http://www.aqua-mail.com > > On 9 August 2016 03:08:05 "Tim Bain [via ActiveMQ]" < > ml-node+s2283324n471515...@n4.nabble.com> wrote: > > We don't see a lot of traffic on this list about people using PostgreSQL > (or other SQL data stores, for that matter), and I've seen it said that > there's been less effort spent to test/maintain/improve the JDBC store > code, so it's possible that there are bugs that haven't been found yet, and > this could be one of those. > > Can you tell us more about how you shut down the master? Did you shut down > the ActiveMQ instance itself, or just pull the plug on the server, or...? > > And did the slave never successfully start, or just not for some short > amount of time? The JDBC locker ( > http://activemq.apache.org/pluggable-storage-lockers.html) has a > lockKeepAlive period; is it possible that you stopped letting the slave try > to reconnect before that period had elapsed? > > Tim > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 10:15 PM, davidyce <[hidden > email]</user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4715151&i=0>> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We have a problem when we shut down serverA (hosting amq master), server > B > > (hosting amq slave) did not run as Master. In the end, amq becomes > > blocked. > > No incoming, no outgoing messages. Our initial investigation is due to > the > > amq slave not able to acquire the database lock which amq master is still > > holding on. > > > > OS: Centos 7 > > Activemq version:5.9.0 > > Postgre database:9.5.3 > > amq master:61616 > > amq slave:61617 > > > > Appreciate any help. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > > nabble.com/Postgresql-Database-Lock-Issue-in-Master- > > Slave-setup-tp4715112.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > ________________________________ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Postgresql- > Database-Lock-Issue-in-Master-Slave-setup-tp4715112p4715151.html > To unsubscribe from Postgresql Database Lock Issue in Master-Slave setup, > click here<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/ > NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=4715112&code= > eWVvY2VAbmNzLmNvbS5zZ3w0NzE1MTEyfDI3OTYyNTQ0>. > NAML<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/ > NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html% > 21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces. > BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace- > nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs= > notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails% > 21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/Postgresql-Database-Lock-Issue-in-Master- > Slave-setup-tp4715112p4715386.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
