[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2149?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=50551#action_50551
]
Aaron Riekenberg commented on AMQ-2149:
---------------------------------------
Dejan -
Thanks for your comments.
I agree a production system would probably not kill a broker every 20 seconds.
I developed this test case after observing occasional problems in testing
broker failover in our application. In our application, causing individual
failovers sometimes causes old messages to be redelivered or new messages to be
delivered out of order.
Based on testing I have done, I believe there is currently some chance of
redelivery of old messages or out of order delivery of new messages on *any*
failover, not just after several rapid failovers. I have observed the test
case sometimes causes these problems on the *first* failover.
The reason for the rapid 20-second failovers is just to increase the
probability of showing the problem in a short amount of time.
> Shared Filesystem Master Slave: missing messages
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMQ-2149
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2149
> Project: ActiveMQ
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 5.2.0
> Environment: Ubuntu Linux 8.10 AMD64, Sun JDK 1.6.0.10
> Reporter: Aaron Riekenberg
> Attachments: activemq.log, activemq.log.2009_03_12_1,
> activemq.log.2009_03_12_2, activemq.xml, AMQ-2149.zip, MasterSlaveTest.java,
> MasterSlaveTestWithTransactions.java, run_master_slave_brokers.sh
>
>
> I'm finding occasionally messages are not delivered in order in a shared
> filesystem master slave setup when the master fails and the slave takes over.
> I'm running a simple test on one physical machine where the shared
> filesystem is on a single disk (no SAN currently involved).
> I'm attaching a shell script (run_master_slave_brokers.sh) that starts a
> master and slave broker in the same directory, sleeps 20 seconds, kills the
> master, sleeps 20 seconds, starts a new slave, sleeps 20 seconds, kills the
> master, etc.
> Also attached is a small java test program (MasterSlaveTest.java) The
> program starts 10 JMS senders that send 75kb text messages every 25 ms to
> unique queues. These messages contain a sequence number header (a long).
> The program also starts 10 receivers (1 for each queue) that keep track of
> the next expected sequence number and validate each incoming sequence number.
> If a receiver gets an unexpected sequence number, the test program exits
> (System.exit(1)). Both the senders and receivers use the failover transport
> to connect to the broker. Messages being sent are persistent, so in theory
> there should be no message loss when the master fails and slave takes over.
> I run the script to start the brokers, then run my test program. Most times
> when the script kills the master and the slave is promoted, things work fine
> - the test program reconnects, and messages continue to be delivered in
> order. If I run this long enough though, eventually my test program fails
> just after a slave broker is promoted to master with output similar to this:
> Mar 6, 2009 11:58:12 AM
> org.apache.activemq.transport.failover.FailoverTransport doReconnect
> INFO: Successfully reconnected to tcp://localhost:61616
> Mar 6, 2009 11:58:12 AM org.aaron.MasterSlaveTest$Receiver onMessage
> WARNING: test.queue.3 received 630 expected 629
> This indicates the receiver for test.queue.3 received message 630 after the
> slave broker took over and missed message 629.
> This seems to happen more often when more senders and receivers are running
> and more queues are in use. If I run a single sender/receiver pair on 1
> queue, it is very difficult to make this happen.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
