Yes, that information is applicable and gives a good overview of the
internals of KahaDB.
Tim
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 1:29 AM norinos wrote:
> I found the following site. Is this helpful for me?
>
> http://www.idevnews.com/images/emailers/110127_ProgressFUSE/WhitePapers/ActiveMQinActionCH05.pdf
>
Hi Tim ! thanks a lot.
> The documentation you linked to is for the AMQ message store, not the
> KahaDB message store. So if you're using KahaDB as you say, then the page
> you linked to is irrelevant.
I finally understood that AMQ and KahaDB are different.
> KahaDB behaves as I described. Y
The documentation you linked to is for the AMQ message store, not the
KahaDB message store. So if you're using KahaDB as you say, then the page
you linked to is irrelevant.
KahaDB behaves as I described. You only risk losing messages that have not
yet been accepted (i.e. you don't risk losing anyt
As you say, I'm using KahaDB.
> You asked whether subscriptions would be on the new master, and the answer
> depends on whether the subscription was durable. If it was a durable
> subscription, the subscription information is persisted and the
> subscription will be in the same state on the new
The AMQ store is not widely used these days. You'll probably be using the
KahaDB store: activemq.apache.org/kahadb.html
As you said, if there is any content that has not been flushed to disk, it
will be lost when the master goes down. However, unless you've manually
set enableJournalDiskSyncs to f
Greg,
Thanks for the reply. I just wanted to confirm a couple of things.
1) The NFS requirement is so that DRBD can be used in Primary/Primary mode
as the file system needs to be writeable from both nodes?
2) With NFS I would also need to use Pacemaker to make the NFS server HA?
3) Is the NFS Tec
The slave is a standby that will once it can lock the journal "reverse" the
roles, so
the downed node once it is up will start looking for the lock.
On Jan 8, 2013, at 9:38 AM, pico wrote:
> configured 2 brokers using the shared file syntax
>
> However, the slave broker is always looking for
Thank you for sharing that, Mario.
Mike
On May 31, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Mario Siegenthaler wrote:
We've tried it on NFS on linux and it didn't work (some locking issue
with java and nfs). However it worked with windows shares, but we're
not using it because we run linux boxes.
Mario
On 5/31/07
We've tried it on NFS on linux and it didn't work (some locking issue
with java and nfs). However it worked with windows shares, but we're
not using it because we run linux boxes.
Mario
On 5/31/07, Michael Slattery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello List!
I'm interested in putting together the S
On 5/19/07, Christopher G. Stach II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
>
> Thanks for the heads up! :)
>
> I guess we could make the locking strategy pluggable & we could have
> some implementation call the fcntl locking. e.g. maybe using Jtux
>
> http://www.basepath.com/aup/jtux/
>
Christopher G. Stach II wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>> Thanks for the heads up! :)
>>
>> I guess we could make the locking strategy pluggable & we could have
>> some implementation call the fcntl locking. e.g. maybe using Jtux
>>
>> http://www.basepath.com/aup/jtux/
>>
>
> Even though one could
James Strachan wrote:
>
> Thanks for the heads up! :)
>
> I guess we could make the locking strategy pluggable & we could have
> some implementation call the fcntl locking. e.g. maybe using Jtux
>
> http://www.basepath.com/aup/jtux/
>
Even though one could achieve this, I don't know what the b
On 5/18/07, Christopher G. Stach II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
> On 5/18/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/17/07, felipera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > I am trying to setup two MQ Servers (4.1.1), sharing the same data
>> directo
James Strachan wrote:
> On 5/18/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/17/07, felipera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > I am trying to setup two MQ Servers (4.1.1), sharing the same data
>> directory
>> > (I tried Derby and Kaha), on top of OCFS, but the locking
On 5/18/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/17/07, felipera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am trying to setup two MQ Servers (4.1.1), sharing the same data directory
> (I tried Derby and Kaha), on top of OCFS, but the locking doesn't seem to be
> working. It works
On 5/17/07, felipera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am trying to setup two MQ Servers (4.1.1), sharing the same data directory
(I tried Derby and Kaha), on top of OCFS, but the locking doesn't seem to be
working. It works fine when both MQs are running on the same server (still
using
On 4/10/07, Dingwen Yuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have tried the latest version - apache-activemq-4.2-20070328.130210-35, but
the same error still exists. With what are you going to substitute activeio?
activeio has been removed from the codebase
--
James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/
File System Master Slave with Windows
On 4/3/07, pdvyuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can I use a shared windows file system to achieve "Shared File System Master
> Slave"? I have made some tests, but occasionally some error would occur. I
> made the tes
On 4/3/07, pdvyuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
Can I use a shared windows file system to achieve "Shared File System Master
Slave"? I have made some tests, but occasionally some error would occur. I made the
test under 2 instances of activemq-4.2 runing on WinXP. The errors are as follo
19 matches
Mail list logo