Done. I've pushed the four cherry-picked commits to the 0.6.x branch if
you'd like to give it a go.
-Ted
On 09/30/2016 05:47 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
Hello Ted,
Following discussions here
(http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Dispatch-router-0-6-1-Configuration-bugs-td7651334.html),
can DISPATCH-500 be included in the minor release?
PS: It still hasn't solved my below issue but I will continue the analysis on
the other thread
Regards,
Adel
Apache Qpid users - [Dispatch router 0.6.1] Configuration
bugs<http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Dispatch-router-0-6-1-Configuration-bugs-td7651334.html>
qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com
[Dispatch router 0.6.1] Configuration bugs. Hello, As a follow up to my
previous thread, I am having some issues with the dispatch router. I will start
with the first one here: It seems the...
________________________________
From: Adel Boutros <adelbout...@live.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:01:45 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Testing failover on dispatcher/java-broker cluster
I would expect what you have described however it doesn't seem to be the case.
delete/recreate mobile address:
qdmanage -b amqp://localhost:10501 delete --type=address --name
haProxy.queue.addr
qdmanage -b amqp://localhost:10501 create --type=address prefix=haProxy.queue
waypoint=true name=haProxy.queue.addr
The stats remain at a positive value (10 10). If I restart the dispatchers
without the inter-router connection, I don't have the issue.
Router Addresses
class addr phs distrib in-proc local
remote cntnr in out thru to-proc from-proc
==================================================================================
mobile haProxy.queue 1 balanced 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
mobile haProxy.queue 0 balanced 0 1 0
0 10 10 0 0 0
Adel
________________________________
From: Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:55 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Testing failover on dispatcher/java-broker cluster
On 09/29/2016 10:47 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
They seem fair enough and quite related.
As a side note, I have a bug with the dispatch router 0.6.1 but I haven't
submitted it yet because I haven't reduced the test case yet.
In resume, when I connect 2 dispatchers (inter-router) and then delete the connector/listener of
"inter-router". If I delete and recreate a mobile address which has received a message on one of the
dispatchers, the stats of the "in" and "out" do not reset to 0 when doing "qdstat -a" but
they remain at the old values. However they reset correctly on the other router.
What exactly do you mean by "delete and recreate a mobile address"?
If an address is removed from the table, the next time it appears, a new
record will be created for that address. The new record will have
zeroed statistics. What behavior are you expecting?
Have you encountered something similar? Once I have a reduced test case, I will
post it in a different thread of course.
Regards,
Adel
________________________________
From: Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:38:26 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Testing failover on dispatcher/java-broker cluster
Sorry, those Jira numbers and descriptions are mismatched. Here's the
correct list:
- DISPATCH-496 - Activation of an autolink does not result in issuing
credit to a blocked sender
- DISPATCH-505 - Eventual loss of credit on inter-router control
links when the topology changes
- DISPATCH-523 - Topology changes can cause in-flight deliveries to
be stuck in the ingress router
On 09/29/2016 10:35 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
On 09/24/2016 05:32 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
We are indeed in favor of a minor release as long as the latest
version is still 0.6.x and we are willing to re-launch our tests and
give feedback on the release candidate once provided (It shouldn't
take us more than a day to compile and test).
Do you have a list of fixes in mind?
I've identified three fixes that look like good candidates for 0.6.2:
- DISPATCH-496 - Topology changes can cause in-flight deliveries to
be stuck in the ingress router
- DISPATCH-505 - Eventual loss of credit on inter-router control
links when the topology changes
- DISPATCH-523 - Activation of an autolink does not result in issuing
credit to a blocked sender
These are all stability-related issues.
Thoughts?
-Ted
Regards,Adel
Subject: Re: Testing failover on dispatcher/java-broker cluster
To: users@qpid.apache.org
From: tr...@redhat.com
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:23:57 -0400
Hi Adel,
A minor release is always possible. It's up to us, the community, to
decide whether and when to produce one. I'm in favor of releasing an
0.6.2 with some small backports to fix bugs for users that want to stay
on Proton 0.12.
-Ted
On 09/23/2016 09:44 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
Hello Ted,
Did you happen to have the time to check if a minor release is
possible?
Regards,Adel
From: adelbout...@live.com
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: RE: Testing failover on dispatcher/java-broker cluster
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:13:03 +0200
Hello Ted,
I confirm the fix solved the issue.
Would it be possible to do a 0.6.2 release? We cannot compile newer
versions of Proton (We currently use 0.12.2) due to lack of
resources from our side and we really need this fix for our tests.
Regards,
Adel
Subject: Re: Testing failover on dispatcher/java-broker cluster
To: users@qpid.apache.org
From: tr...@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:18:23 -0400
Hi Adel,
It's a one-liner and it applies cleanly to the 0.6.x branch.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-dispatch.git;h=41b7407
-Ted
On 09/19/2016 11:41 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
Hello Ted,
Antoine is on vacation so I will be taking over this task.
Does this fix have any dependencies? We would like to apply it on
0.6.1 without other fixes because it seems the master branch
requires proton 0.13.0 minimum whereas we have currently 0.12.2
and we cannot upgrade at the time being.
Regards,
Adel
Subject: Re: Testing failover on dispatcher/java-broker cluster
To: users@qpid.apache.org
From: tr...@redhat.com
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:53:05 -0400
Antoine,
I think I know what that problem is. I belileve you've stumbled
upon
this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-496
Your second delivery, the one resulting in a timeout, is causing
the
inbound link to be blocked (i.e. it has undelivered messages).
When the
broker reattaches, the blocked links are supposed to become
unblocked
but they don't in the case of auto-links.
This has been fixed on the master branch if you'd like to try
applying
the patch.
-Ted
On 09/15/2016 04:56 AM, Antoine Chevin wrote:
Hi Ted,
You’re right, the connection close looked strange before
stopping of the
broker. I manually added the annotation (# stopping the broker)
and was
wrong about the position of this one. I replayed the test and the
connection close happens *after* the broker stop. I assume it
is the broker
that initiates it.
I found something interesting. In my test, I always sent a
message when the
broker is down, expecting to get a JmsSendTimedOutException
(waiting for
the disposition frame). I assumed this was harmless. But it
turns out this
is not. When I don’t do that, I can send a message after the
broker
restart. So to sum up the experiment I did:
* I use Wireshark between the JMS client and the dispatcher. *
1) Using JMS I establish a connection to the dispatcher
and create a
message producer (Wireshark: connection open -> attach)
2) I’m able to send a message to the broker through the
dispatcher (
Wireshark: transfer -> disposition)
3) I stop the broker
4) With the same link, I send a message and I get a
JmsSendTimedOutException (waiting for the disposition frame)
(Wireshark:
transfer)
5) I restart the broker
6) With the same link, I try to send a message and I get a
JmsSendTimedOutException for the same reason (waiting for the
disposition
frame) (Wireshark: transfer)
If I skip step (4), I cannot reproduce step (6) and my messages
arrive
(Wireshark: transfer -> disposition) to the restarted broker.
I hope it makes it clearer for you. Sorry for my rookie
mistakes :-).
Note: My colleague and I ran a small experiment to identify if
the problem
comes from JMS or the AMQP protocol. He changed the code of the
java broker
to not send the disposition frame one time out of two.
We got these results:
* I use Wireshark between the JMS client and the patched broker. *
1) Using JMS I establish a connection to the patched broker and
create a
message producer (Wireshark: connection open -> attach)
2) I send a message to the broker and it replies with the
disposition
frame (Wireshark: transfer -> disposition)
3) I send a message to the broker which drops the disposition
frame. I get
a send timeout in JMS (Wireshark: transfer)
2) I send a message to the broker and it replies with the
disposition frame
(Wireshark: transfer -> disposition). It works fine.
We assume that there is something going on in the dispatcher.
Thanks,
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
