[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2916?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Francesco Nigro reassigned ARTEMIS-2916:
----------------------------------------
Assignee: Francesco Nigro
> Two servers becoming Live using JDBC Shared Store
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-2916
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2916
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Broker
> Affects Versions: 2.13.0
> Reporter: Apache Dev
> Assignee: Francesco Nigro
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: logs.zip
>
>
> We have similar scenario described in ARTEMIS-2421 but using:
> * Artemis 2.13.0
> * JDBC Shared Store
> * 1 Master currently down
> * 3 Slave
> ** 1 Live
> ** 2 Backup
> All 3 slaves are configured with:
> {code:xml}
> <ha-policy>
> <shared-store>
> <slave>
> <allow-failback>false</allow-failback>
> <failover-on-shutdown>true</failover-on-shutdown>
> </slave>
> </shared-store>
> </ha-policy>
> {code}
>
> After 2 days of activities, with a single slave working as live we got
> suddenly one slave server becoming live too while the other live server was
> still working. No warnings/errors available. Just backup server started
> creating configured addresses, queues and starting connectors, then it logged
> "AMQ221010: Backup Server is now live".
> The third slave broker started in the meanwhile to log continuously:
> {noformat}
> AMQ212034: There are more than one servers on the network broadcasting the
> same node id. You will see this message exactly once (per node) if a node is
> restarted, in which case it can be safely ignored. But if it is logged
> continuously it means you really do have more than one node on the same
> network active concurrently with the same node id. This could occur if you
> have a backup node active at the same time as its live node. nodeID=...
> {noformat}
> Final scenario was:
> * 1 Master down
> * 3 Slave
> ** 2 Live
> ** 1 Backup
> I see that ARTEMIS-2421 was fixed only in the filesystem use-case. Should it
> be fixed for JDBC too?
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
