You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> on 2016/01/20 14:25:24 UTC
Re: Offline durable subscriptions lost when rebuilding kahadb index.
A bug has been fixed with this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6131
Durables should come back now even after an index rebuild starting with
5.13.1 and 5.14.0
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> Also, AMQ-4212 clearly requested that this exact problem be resolved, it is
> marked as Fixed in 5.9, and neither Tim nor Gary made any comments that
> indicate that a full solution wasn't implemented. What you're saying
> sounds like we didn't actually resolve the problem, which doesn't match
> what the JIRA record indicates.
>
> If the goal was a complete fix, then we have a regression (or a bug in the
> fix) and a new JIRA bug should be submitted. If the decision got made not
> to attempt a full fix, then the JIRA record should have been updated to
> reflect what we actually did (and a new record that's a clone of the
> original should have been submitted to track the fact that we haven't
> actually addressed the issue requested by the original, even though we did
> work under the original and are closing it to reflect that we're done with
> the smaller scope we decided to pursue).
>
> Tim, can you provide any insight into whether we've got a regression/bug or
> just need to do some cleanup in JIRA to avoid misleading people?
>
> Tim
> On Dec 29, 2015 6:55 AM, "Tim Bain" <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> > A separate KahaDB instance solely for durable subscription messages would
> > be a solution that doesn't require compaction. We already keep scheduled
> > messages in their own KahaDB instance (right?) for exactly the same
> > reason. I'm not sure the lifecycle of durable subscription messages and
> > the lifecycle of scheduled messages are guaranteed to be similar enough
> to
> > put them in the same KahaDB instance, but we can certainly use the same
> > paradigm a second time.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > Tim
> > On Dec 28, 2015 10:30 AM, "Christopher Shannon" <
> > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is the way KahaDB currently works. There is no way to keep around
> >> the
> >> durable subscriptions (other than the index) because then KahaDB would
> >> never be able to GC any files. The main way I can think of to fix this
> >> would be to do some sort of compaction, as Tim pointed out in the
> comments
> >> of AMQ-4212. However, compaction would not be a trivial thing to
> >> implement.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Chris,
> >> >
> >> > Sorry no one responded to you before now, but this certainly does
> sound
> >> > like AMQ-4212 didn't fix all causes of the problem. Can you submit a
> >> bug
> >> > in JIRA and attach a set of data files and the corresponding index
> that
> >> > will demonstrate the problem?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Tim
> >> > On Sep 4, 2015 7:03 AM, "ChristianWander" <ch...@piffedeckel.de>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm using ActiveMQ 5.10.2 and the included example code
> >> > > (jms-example-durable-sub) to play around with durable subscriptions.
> >> > >
> >> > > The examples work fine and the broker remembers the durable
> >> subscriptions
> >> > > when the consumer goes offline and the broker is restarted.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, if I stop the broker and delete the files db.data and
> >> db.redo to
> >> > > enforce a rebuild of the kahadb index according to here
> >> > > <https://access.redhat.com/solutions/276323> , the broker forgets
> >> about
> >> > > the
> >> > > offline durable subscriptions.
> >> > >
> >> > > Shouldn't this be fixed with [AMQ4212]
> >> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4212> or am I doing
> >> > something
> >> > > wrong here?
> >> > >
> >> > > Chris
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > View this message in context:
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Offline-durable-subscriptions-lost-when-rebuilding-kahadb-index-tp4701701.html
> >> > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: Offline durable subscriptions lost when rebuilding kahadb index.
Posted by Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>.
Thanks to Tim Bish for implementing the fix, and to Chris for letting us
know about it.
On Jan 20, 2016 6:26 AM, "Christopher Shannon" <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> A bug has been fixed with this:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6131
>
> Durables should come back now even after an index rebuild starting with
> 5.13.1 and 5.14.0
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> > Also, AMQ-4212 clearly requested that this exact problem be resolved, it
> is
> > marked as Fixed in 5.9, and neither Tim nor Gary made any comments that
> > indicate that a full solution wasn't implemented. What you're saying
> > sounds like we didn't actually resolve the problem, which doesn't match
> > what the JIRA record indicates.
> >
> > If the goal was a complete fix, then we have a regression (or a bug in
> the
> > fix) and a new JIRA bug should be submitted. If the decision got made
> not
> > to attempt a full fix, then the JIRA record should have been updated to
> > reflect what we actually did (and a new record that's a clone of the
> > original should have been submitted to track the fact that we haven't
> > actually addressed the issue requested by the original, even though we
> did
> > work under the original and are closing it to reflect that we're done
> with
> > the smaller scope we decided to pursue).
> >
> > Tim, can you provide any insight into whether we've got a regression/bug
> or
> > just need to do some cleanup in JIRA to avoid misleading people?
> >
> > Tim
> > On Dec 29, 2015 6:55 AM, "Tim Bain" <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > A separate KahaDB instance solely for durable subscription messages
> would
> > > be a solution that doesn't require compaction. We already keep
> scheduled
> > > messages in their own KahaDB instance (right?) for exactly the same
> > > reason. I'm not sure the lifecycle of durable subscription messages
> and
> > > the lifecycle of scheduled messages are guaranteed to be similar enough
> > to
> > > put them in the same KahaDB instance, but we can certainly use the same
> > > paradigm a second time.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > Tim
> > > On Dec 28, 2015 10:30 AM, "Christopher Shannon" <
> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is the way KahaDB currently works. There is no way to keep
> around
> > >> the
> > >> durable subscriptions (other than the index) because then KahaDB would
> > >> never be able to GC any files. The main way I can think of to fix
> this
> > >> would be to do some sort of compaction, as Tim pointed out in the
> > comments
> > >> of AMQ-4212. However, compaction would not be a trivial thing to
> > >> implement.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Chris,
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry no one responded to you before now, but this certainly does
> > sound
> > >> > like AMQ-4212 didn't fix all causes of the problem. Can you submit
> a
> > >> bug
> > >> > in JIRA and attach a set of data files and the corresponding index
> > that
> > >> > will demonstrate the problem?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Tim
> > >> > On Sep 4, 2015 7:03 AM, "ChristianWander" <ch...@piffedeckel.de>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm using ActiveMQ 5.10.2 and the included example code
> > >> > > (jms-example-durable-sub) to play around with durable
> subscriptions.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The examples work fine and the broker remembers the durable
> > >> subscriptions
> > >> > > when the consumer goes offline and the broker is restarted.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > However, if I stop the broker and delete the files db.data and
> > >> db.redo to
> > >> > > enforce a rebuild of the kahadb index according to here
> > >> > > <https://access.redhat.com/solutions/276323> , the broker
> forgets
> > >> about
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > offline durable subscriptions.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Shouldn't this be fixed with [AMQ4212]
> > >> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4212> or am I doing
> > >> > something
> > >> > > wrong here?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Chris
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > View this message in context:
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Offline-durable-subscriptions-lost-when-rebuilding-kahadb-index-tp4701701.html
> > >> > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>