On 12/28/2010 07:00 PM, Mark Moseley wrote:
Sorry in advance that this is long. I've tried to explain it as succinctly but thoroughly as possible.I've got a 2-node qpid test cluster at each of 2 datacenters, which are federated together with a single durable static route between each. Qpid is version 0.8. Corosync and openais are stock Squeeze (1.2.1-3 and 1.1.2-2, respectively). OS is Squeeze, 32-bit, on Dell Poweredge 1950s, kernel 2.6.36. The static route is durable and is set up over SSL. This is quite possibly just a conceptual problem with how I'm setting this up, so if anyone has a 'right way' to do it, I'm all ears :) Just a prelim: Call them cluster A with nodes A1 and A2, and cluster B with nodes B1 and B2. The static route is defined as A1->B1 for an exchange on cluster B (call it exchangeB), and the other route is B1->A1 for an exchange on cluster A (call it exchangeA). After setting this up, things seem to work pretty well. I can send from any node in cluster A to exchangeB and it's received by any receiving node in cluster B. Running "qpid-config ... exchanges --bindings" on cluster A nodes show the route to cluster B for exchangeB and vice versa. That seems to be good. The trouble I'm having regards failover. I'm finding that if I fail the cluster in the order where the node with the route on it lives: * Kill A1, kill A2, start A2, start A1 -> The bindings on cluster B for exchangeA get set back up automatically Also, after I kill A1, the route seems to fail over correctly to A2, i.e. with A1 dead and A2 still alive, looking at qpid-route on B1 or B2 says: Exchange 'exchangeA' (direct) bind [mytopic] => bridge_queue_1_f6d80145-67d2-4659-b26e-80c4da3ae85b If I stop the cluster in this order: * Kill A2, kill A1, start A1, start A2 -> The bindings on cluster B for exchangeA don't get set up, i.e. on B1 or B2, qpid-route says: Exchange 'exchangeA' (direct) Am I doing something wrong or is this a known limitation? I'd expect that regardless of ordering, a durable route would come back up on its own, on either node. I'd also think that if it was a limitation, it'd happen in the other order, when A2 was the last node standing, considering the route was created for A1.
I think you have uncovered a bug, can you create a JIRA for it and assign it to me initially? Detailed instructions on how to reproduce are greatly appreciated.
I had tried earlier to use source routes for my routing and they seemed to do better at coming back after failover but on the source clusters' side, the non-primary node (A2) would often blow up when cluster B was down and a node in cluster B came back online, always saying this in A2's qpid logs (10.1.58.3 is A1, 10.1.58.4 is A2): 2010-12-28 17:19:37 info ACL Allow id:walcl...@qpid action:create ObjectType:link Name: 2010-12-28 17:19:37 info Connection is a federation link 2010-12-28 17:19:39 error Channel exception: not-attached: Channel 1 is not attached (qpid/amqp_0_10/SessionHandler.cpp:39) 2010-12-28 17:19:39 critical cluster(10.1.58.4:3128 READY/error) local error 3054 did not occur on member 10.1.58.3:3369: not-attached: Channel 1 is not) 2010-12-28 17:19:39 critical Error delivering frames: local error did not occur on all cluster members : not-attached: Channel 1 is not attached (qpid/a) 2010-12-28 17:19:39 notice cluster(10.1.58.4:3128 LEFT/error) leaving cluster walclust 2010-12-28 17:19:39 notice Shut down
This also sounds like a bug, can you create a separate JIRA for it? Assign to me as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
