[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #:
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/commit/a2da41ee2e347bcf8fe721bded89e4a78ca14cfb#commitcomment-29899636 In artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/ActiveMQSessionContext.java: In artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/ActiveMQSessionContext.java on line 948: ah ok, sorry missed you moved that logic upwards. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #:
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/commit/a2da41ee2e347bcf8fe721bded89e4a78ca14cfb#commitcomment-29899679 In artemis-jms-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/jms/client/ActiveMQMessageProducer.java: In artemis-jms-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/jms/client/ActiveMQMessageProducer.java on line 574: The new response handler only gets invoked for correlating ids, Also the dedupe is the reason for the cache, e.g. it should only via the cache which "should" take care of this, by the nature that the id is removed from cache, so next will have cache miss and do nothing. Was there a case it was being invoked twice? If so that should be fixed as would be a bug in the cache code , or somewhere its being called not via the cache ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2187: ARTEMIS-1545 Support JMS 2.0 Completion...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2187#discussion_r206422634 --- Diff: artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/PacketImpl.java --- @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ // 2.0.0 public static final int ADDRESSING_CHANGE_VERSION = 129; - public static final int SHARED_QUEUE_SECURITY_FIX_CHANGE_VERSION = 130; --- End diff -- This was used in version 2.6.1 shouldn't be removed, need to bump the async response change version. (as was made prior to the security fix version) ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2187: ARTEMIS-1545 Support JMS 2.0 Completion...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2187#discussion_r206424803
--- Diff:
artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/ActiveMQSessionContext.java
---
@@ -189,16 +185,24 @@ public void kill() {
this.killed = true;
}
+ private void setHandlers() {
+
sessionChannel.setCommandConfirmationHandler(commandConfirmationHandler);
--- End diff --
This was meant to be either newer response handler or the older command
confirm handler. The intent was both shouldn't be set. This may be the reason
of your dupes issue, what was this needed still even with the async response
change?
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2201: ENTMQBR-1821: Updated ScaleDownHandler ...
Github user RoddieKieley closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2201 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2202: ARTEMIS-2000: For ScaleDown set the Rou...
GitHub user RoddieKieley opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2202 ARTEMIS-2000: For ScaleDown set the RoutingType header property on th⦠â¦e message so if the address does not exist on the other end it will be created correctly. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/RoddieKieley/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-2000 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2202.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2202 commit 71f75e2ded2fe5f61e7099848b571e993f9ebbea Author: Roddie Kieley Date: 2018-07-31T12:34:56Z ARTEMIS-2000: For ScaleDown set the RoutingType header property on the message so if the address does not exist on the other end it will be created correctly. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CP...
GitHub user franz1981 opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time if msg grouping is used The deliver loop won't give up trying to deliver messages when back-pressure kicks in (credits and/or TCP) if msg grouping is used and there are many consumers registered: this change will allow the loop to exit by instructing the logic that the group consumer is the only consumer to check. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/franz1981/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-1999 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2203 commit a667561066f0f4c2e1c95dbde0e9eb9e16bde7a5 Author: Francesco Nigro Date: 2018-07-31T09:16:26Z ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time if msg grouping is used The deliver loop won't give up trying to deliver messages when back-pressure kicks in (credits and/or TCP) if msg grouping is used and there are many consumers registered: this change will allow the loop to exit by instructing the logic that the group consumer is the only consumer to check. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @clebertsuconic Please take a look if the change seems to break any other logic and @michaelandrepearce if exclusive consumers should be affected by a similar issue (IMO it shouldn't be the case) ---
[GitHub] activemq-nms-amqp issue #2: AMQNET-575: NMS AMQP Client Rework
Github user dpauls commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-nms-amqp/pull/2 @tabish121 I appreciate the effort you've put into reviewing this. Just a quick ping to see if there's anything else we can do to get this PR merged in. If you just need to take another look and haven't had time yet, then no worries. We're just eager to see this move towards a release. Thanks! ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 Would be possible a test? without a test I don't know how to validate the change TBH. At least were you able to run the whole testsuite. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 I have already run the entire test suite that is already filled of AMQP and CORE JMS message group tests AFAIK. About the performance implications (not anymore 100% CPU) I don't know what could I write to validate it with a test... ---
[VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5
Hi Everyone, I have created the ActiveMQ 5.15.5 release and it's ready for a vote. This release includes over 20 fixes/improvements. The list of resolved issues is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12343307 You can get the release artifacts here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.15.5/ Maven repository is at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1167/ Source tag: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h=688c290110416f04b2a3251f9747a7f16e83329d Please vote to approve this release. The vote will remain open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 [ ] -1 (provide specific comments) Here's my +1
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2193: ARTEMIS-1985: Switch from XA_RDONLY to XA_OK a...
Github user graben commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2193 @clebertsuconic : Friendly reminder :-) ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2204: ARTEMIS-2001 - JMSXGroupID and JMSXUser...
GitHub user michaelandrepearce opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2204 ARTEMIS-2001 - JMSXGroupID and JMSXUserID in getPropertyNames Ensure JMSXGroupID and JMSXUserID is correctly returned by JMS getPropertyNames when set. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-2001 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2204.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2204 commit 2147f8204572c167459d29f12e333726cf38b87b Author: Michael André Pearce Date: 2018-07-31T13:49:39Z ARTEMIS-2001 - JMSXGroupID and JMSXUserID in getPropertyNames Ensure JMSXGroupID and JMSXUserID is correctly returned by JMS getPropertyNames when set. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2193: ARTEMIS-1985: Switch from XA_RDONLY to XA_OK a...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2193 @graben I wasn't sure what to do with this since there's no test.. I have no idea how to validate it yet. do you have any parallels to compare what would be the proper return. I know it's hard to test this since it needs a TM.. etc... ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2193: ARTEMIS-1985: Switch from XA_RDONLY to XA_OK a...
Github user graben commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2193 Yes, I commented in Jira that either via core protocol (Artemis) and ActiveMQ are returning XA_OK. Actually all events only get prepared and therefor data loss. My test case (simple program) only needs a few lines for the tm. I'm using geronimo tm which is easy to init. ---
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5
+1 Thanks for doing the release, Chrsitopher. -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @franz1981 make a test that will exercise the loop. Try to get a synchronize on Queue... if the test hangs.. it's a bug... use a timeout tag on the test. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @franz1981 i exclusive yes i think would have similar issue, after all it followed the same logic of message groups in part. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CP...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203#discussion_r206558769
--- Diff:
artemis-server/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/server/impl/QueueImpl.java
---
@@ -2370,10 +2370,10 @@ private void deliver() {
}
}
-if (pos == endPos) {
- // Round robin'd all
+if (pos == endPos || groupConsumer != null) {
--- End diff --
groupConsumer is only set if a msg group is already assigned, or has
succesfully handled. i would change this to check if groupID is not null.
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 > exclusive yes i think would have similar issue, after all it followed the same logic of message groups in part. It would be easy to fix, as in the same place / if statement just check for the exclusive flag. Nice, I suppose that would be better to raise a different issue/PR for that even if I'm tempted to do it fro this one: it is indeed fixing a similar but different issue. I'm anyway opened to do it differently too :+1: > what if all consumers are busy and a message group isnt assigned? it would still spin i assume. I the message group isn't assigned it will use round robin between the consumers until noDeliver == size: in that case it will stop spinning without burning any CPU, because deliverAsync won't be called anymore. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @franz1981 once you do fix for this with test and this is merged, ill fix exclusive quickly, as then i can just rip your hard work :P :P :P ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2204: ARTEMIS-2001 - JMSXGroupID and JMSXUserID in g...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2204 @clebertsuconic @franz1981 test failure is unrelated thats failing for many PR's MultiThreadAsynchronousFileTest. Could you look at this and merged, this caused an issue with spring integration, as it relies on getPropertyNames to get all the properties but we found when using msg groups it not being set and found this is why. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2200: ARTEMIS-1997 - un-needed SimpleString creation...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2200 @franz1981 test failure is un-related, its the same one plaguing other PR's currently. If you're happy if you could merge? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user franz1981 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @michaelandrepearce ahah fine! > btw how you get a clean PR build ? without the damn MultiThreadAsynchronousFileTest failing...like it has been for most PR's recently? That's a nice question indeed...it isn't an intermittent failures? Probably I've been lucky...or unlucky depends on the point of views :P ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2200: ARTEMIS-1997 - un-needed SimpleString creation...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2200 @michaelandrepearce let me see if it builds and I will merge it. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2198: ARTEMIS-856 - Support consumersBeforeDispatch ...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2198 @clebertsuconic re-pushed to kick off build again and all green. You ok to merge? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @michaelandrepearce would be too much of a hack to add a -Ptravis profile and add a property to ignore those tests? Those tests run at least daily on my CI and they never fail. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2198: ARTEMIS-856 - Support consumersBeforeDispatch ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2198 @michaelandrepearce What did you do to fix the karaf verification? i lost some sleep the other trying to figure it out and I'm now curious. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @franz1981 so are you adding a test? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2198: ARTEMIS-856 - Support consumersBeforeDispatch ...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2198 @clebertsuconic i removed the custom AtomicBooleanFieldUpdater as @franz1981 wanted and just used AtomicIntegerFieldUpdater direct. Seems i fix the issue and make @franz1981 happy. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2198: ARTEMIS-856 - Support consumersBeforeDispatch ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2198 @michaelandrepearce Ok.. there's an issue with packaging in Karaf for Util depending on how you use. I'm sure it will arise again. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2198: ARTEMIS-856 - Support consumersBeforeDi...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2198 ---
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5
On 07/31/2018 09:13 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote: Hi Everyone, I have created the ActiveMQ 5.15.5 release and it's ready for a vote. This release includes over 20 fixes/improvements. The list of resolved issues is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12343307 You can get the release artifacts here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.15.5/ Maven repository is at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1167/ Source tag: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h=688c290110416f04b2a3251f9747a7f16e83329d Please vote to approve this release. The vote will remain open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 [ ] -1 (provide specific comments) Here's my +1 +1 * Validated signatures and checksums * Checked archives for license and notice files * Built from source and ran smoke tests * Ran the full test suite for STOMP, MQTT and AMQP * Ran binary broker and exercised it using examples -- Tim Bish twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @clebertsuconic before i went on holiday it didnt seem to error as much as it is now, i wonder if some recent merge has destabilized the build? I would worry about ignoring it, as its a concurrency test so it maybe actually highlighting an issue thats been introduced by some recent change / merge. Has there been any changes around the journals? ---
Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5
+1 (non-binding) Thanks for the release ! regards, François Papon fpa...@apache.org Le 31/07/2018 à 17:13, Christopher Shannon a écrit : > Hi Everyone, > > I have created the ActiveMQ 5.15.5 release and it's ready for a vote. This > release includes over 20 fixes/improvements. > > The list of resolved issues is here: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311210&version=12343307 > > You can get the release artifacts here: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq/5.15.5/ > > Maven repository is at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1167/ > > Source tag: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h=688c290110416f04b2a3251f9747a7f16e83329d > > Please vote to approve this release. The vote will remain open for 72 > hours. > > [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache ActiveMQ 5.15.5 > [ ] -1 (provide specific comments) > > Here's my +1 >
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @michaelandrepearce there are no changes around the journal... We already have a profile that will ignore a lot of tests.. and anyone running the full testsuite would still be able to capture regressions. I will take a look on the failures, but if this is indeed environmental we should move them to the ignore-list on the -Pfast-tests ---
[DISCUSS] Artemis progress with roadmap
Hi All, Its been some time and some progress i think has been made in the roadmap that was made on the wiki. Notable progress once the next release occurs im aware of: FQQN enhancements for virtual topic use cases Exclusive consumer support Destinatiin features: consumersBeforeDispatch and delayBeforeDispatch OpenWire support enhancements As such i think it be good to review the roadmap to see progress. With an eye to see what absolute MUST haves in features are left to go, or if the group agrees if all the MUST bits are done. If its worth discussing 6.x again? CheersMike Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2193: ARTEMIS-1985: Switch from XA_RDONLY to XA_OK a...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2193 ok.. merging .. thanks for clarifying.. I have hard a hard time following so many emails :) ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2193: ARTEMIS-1985: Switch from XA_RDONLY to ...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2193 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2193: ARTEMIS-1985: Switch from XA_RDONLY to XA_OK a...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2193 pulled it into 2.6.x ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2191: ARTEMIS-1987 - Add consumer window size to Add...
Github user cshannon commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2191 @clebertsuconic and @michaelandrepearce - i rebased against master and it looks like the tests all pass so this should be good to merge ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2191: ARTEMIS-1987 - Add consumer window size...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2191 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2200: ARTEMIS-1997 - un-needed SimpleString c...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2200 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2202: ARTEMIS-2000: For ScaleDown set the RoutingTyp...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2202 tests? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2204: ARTEMIS-2001 - JMSXGroupID and JMSXUser...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2204 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2204: ARTEMIS-2001 - JMSXGroupID and JMSXUserID in g...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2204 bringing this into 2.6.x ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2197: ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails when live ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2197 bringing this into 2.6.x ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2197: ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails whe...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2197 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2195: ARTEMIS-1992 Make JDBC File Lock map th...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2195 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2196: [ARTEMIS-1994]Include global-size-bytes...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2196 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1950: ARTEMIS-1732 AMQP anonymous producer not block...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1950 @clebertsuconic Whats occuring on this one? We safe to merge this to master now? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2155: ARTEMIS-1949 fix IllegalMonitorStateException ...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2155 @wy96f can you look at the failed build? Ideally need a succesful pr build to merge ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1950: ARTEMIS-1732 AMQP anonymous producer not block...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1950 This needs some work on the model before it can be merged. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1950: ARTEMIS-1732 AMQP anonymous producer not block...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1950 The test added is also wrong.. a sender should block while there are no credits instead of holding runnables on the server. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1950: ARTEMIS-1732 AMQP anonymous producer not block...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1950 Actually the test is very nice.. I'm doing some refactoring on this. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2205: ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails whe...
GitHub user gaohoward opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2205 ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails when live shut down too soon In a live-backup scenario, if the live is restarted and shutdown too soon, the client have a chance to fail on failover because it's internal topology is inconsistent with the final status. The client keeps connecting to live already shut down, never trying to connect to the backup. It's a porting from HORNETQ-1572. (Cherry-picked from master) You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gaohoward/activemq-artemis c_2.6.x_1995 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2205.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2205 commit 2bb35e5dac05aeee3196b4457fbdd1214a214dd1 Author: Howard Gao Date: 2018-07-30T06:48:09Z ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails when live shut down too soon In a live-backup scenario, if the live is restarted and shutdown too soon, the client have a chance to fail on failover because it's internal topology is inconsistent with the final status. The client keeps connecting to live already shut down, never trying to connect to the backup. It's a porting from HORNETQ-1572. (Cherry-picked from master) ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2205: ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails when live ...
Github user gaohoward commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2205 I think the ci build test failures relates to environment. All passes on my local machine. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1950: ARTEMIS-1732 AMQP anonymous producer no...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1950 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1950: ARTEMIS-1732 AMQP anonymous producer not block...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1950 @michaelandrepearce @gaohoward merged with an additional fix. if there's any change you like I can add an additional PR. if you could review please? ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2205: ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails when live ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2205 I pulled a direct commit into 2.6.x, please close this PR. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2203: ARTEMIS-1999 Broker uses 100% core's CPU time ...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2203 @franz1981 please watch the examples. On my private CI an example failed on your branch. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2187: ARTEMIS-1545 Support JMS 2.0 Completion...
Github user clebertsuconic commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2187#discussion_r206733019
--- Diff:
artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/ActiveMQSessionContext.java
---
@@ -189,16 +185,24 @@ public void kill() {
this.killed = true;
}
+ private void setHandlers() {
+
sessionChannel.setCommandConfirmationHandler(commandConfirmationHandler);
--- End diff --
@michaelandrepearce is this ready to be merged in your opinion?
---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1950: ARTEMIS-1732 AMQP anonymous producer not block...
Github user gaohoward commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1950 I think it's ok. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2205: ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails whe...
Github user gaohoward closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2205 ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #2205: ARTEMIS-1995 Client fail over fails when live ...
Github user gaohoward commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2205 ah sorry about that. I'm closing it. ---
[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2187: ARTEMIS-1545 Support JMS 2.0 Completion...
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2187#discussion_r206769179
--- Diff:
artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/core/impl/ActiveMQSessionContext.java
---
@@ -189,16 +185,24 @@ public void kill() {
this.killed = true;
}
+ private void setHandlers() {
+
sessionChannel.setCommandConfirmationHandler(commandConfirmationHandler);
--- End diff --
I have concern why the handler is getting invoked twice. It shouldnt be
possible if its always invoked via the response cache.
Interestingly if i take just the changes justin made in the large message
method, then the original failing tests pass. So the other changes seem to be
not needed but introduce either issue causing the dupe issue that justin
encounters and needs the atomic. I think it needs more discussion and
development still. The answer is probably somewhere inbetween
---
