That would be fine.. I just want to reestablish the connection if it gets dropped (it seems like there are constant network hiccups that cause my connection to get lost). I don't want to lose the connection from innactivity either though. Will it still block if I use the NIO transport? Or can I not wrap the NIO transport with the failover transport?
Thanks for your help. Ryan On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > If you are in the same VM, then use the > vm:<http://activemq.apache.org/how-should-i-use-the-vm-transport.html > >scheme > as this will be a lot faster as there is no marshaling overhead. > > I guess it is worth investigating what is causing your connections to get > dropped. Is it inactivity timeout or network issues? > > With failover, network or connection drop issues will be hidden from your > application as the transport will block while it reconnects. > There may be situations where you want such issues to filter up to your > application to deal with them there, in which case failover: should be > avoided or configured to fail after a low number of retries. > > but it is no harm to use it with a single broker, just be aware that by > default it will block with some incremental backoff. check out the > reference > page for details. > > 2009/3/13 Ryan Moquin <[email protected]> > > > Ahhhhhh ok.. that explains a lot... Too bad I didn't ask this question a > > lot > > sooner since I've been very confused over the last week on why updates > > seemed to stop unexpectedly when they never used to. On the same note, > > should I use failover even for interVM connections? Such as my > servicemix > > services? Are there any times it's safe not to use the failover > transport? > > Or should it always be used unless you have a specific reason you > wouldn't > > want it to connect? > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > you still need to use the failover: scheme in 5.2 when you provide a > url > > > and > > > want failover. > > > The change only effects users who do not provide a brokerUrl to the > > > ActiveMQConnectionFactory. > > > That is the only case where the defaultUrl is used. > > > > > > 2009/3/13 Ryan Moquin <[email protected]> > > > > > > > I've been using ActivbeMQ 5.2 for a while now and am having a problem > > > where > > > > my topic subscribers seem to lose their connections to the ActiveMQ > > > broker > > > > after around 1,000 messages (it seems like they consistently lose > their > > > > connection at just over 1,000 messages). My publishers (SOA services > > in > > > > Servicemix) and my consumers (in a separate VM) are on the same > > machine. > > > I > > > > can tell my consumers are losing their connections by looking at the > > > > activemq web console, I can see the connections will just go away > while > > > my > > > > publishers keep sending. I don't see any error anywhere on my > consumer > > > > side > > > > indicating why the connections were dropped. Now, assuming some > weird > > > > network issue (even though they are on the same machine, it seems > that > > > > network issues will affect local connections) is causing my client to > > > drop, > > > > I thought that ActiveMQ 5.2.0 used failover by default when you use a > > URL > > > > such as: > > > > > > > > tcp://localhost:61616 > > > > > > > > Since according to the release page it says: > > > > > > > > "The default ActiveMQConnectionFactory< > > > > > > > > > > http://activemq.apache.org/maven/activemq-core/apidocs/org/apache/activemq/ActiveMQConnectionFactory.html > > > > >brokerUrl > > > > now uses the failover > > > > transport < > > http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html > > > >." > > > > > > > > Am I mistaken on that? Or do I still need to use the failover URL? > Is > > > it > > > > common for a consumer to lose a connection like this and using a > > failover > > > > URL is all I need to put back in? I never saw this problem when > using > > > > earlier versions of ActiveMQ with failover. Since I moved to 5.2, I > > > > removed > > > > the failover part of the URL because I thought 5.2 used it by > default. > > > Any > > > > clarification on this would be helpful, or even a suggestion on how > to > > > > troubleshoot the issue. It seems like the only way I might be able > to > > > get > > > > some log output to help with the problem is by turning on debug mode? > > > > > > > > Thanks for any help! > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://blog.garytully.com > > > > > > Open Source SOA > > > http://FUSESource.com > > > > > > > > > -- > http://blog.garytully.com > > Open Source SOA > http://FUSESource.com >
