Hi, did you get a chance to look at this?
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Janne, > > this mechanism comes from Karaf. You can use the file system locking or a > JDBC locking. > > To be honest, I don't remember exactly the behavior of the JDBC locking. I'm > gonna take a look in Karaf and keep you posted. > > Regards > JB > > On Fri 27/05/11 08:52 , janne postilista wrote:: > > ServiceMix JDBC locking > http://servicemix.apache.org/kernel/67-configuring-failover-deployments-available-in-110.html > can be used for configuring a master/slave failover setup. > Documentation states that if master servicemix loses database > connection, it shuts down: > > "If connection to the DB is lost then the master instance will attempt > to gracefully shutdown, allowing a slave instance to become master > when the DB service is restored. The former master will require manual > restart." > > This would cause a problem. > - we have a server A and server B with master-slave configured > servicemix and database instances. > - initially server A holds servicemix-master and database-master, > while server B holds servicemix-slave and database-slave > - some updates or problems may cause server B to become > servicemix-master. server A is servicemix-slave. server A still has > database-master. > - so we have servicemix master in server B and database master in server A > - now if whole server A shuts down, there is a delay when server B > database-slave activates, and in the meanwhile database is > inaccessible > - server B had servicemix-master. Now it loses database connection and > gracefully shuts itself down > - end result: neither servicemix is running > > 1. does the JDBC locking failover mechanism indeed shutdown the master > instance immediately when it loses the connection, or are there any > retries or delays? > 2. if there a way to prevent this "graceful shutdown" feature or > otherwise prevent this scenario? > > > >
