Details
-
Bug
-
Status: Closed
-
Major
-
Resolution: Not A Problem
-
5.4.2
-
None
-
None
-
Windows development, Linux production
Description
The behavior of the static:// URI is inconsistent when used with a network connector from a store-and-forward broker, to multiple broker.
Take the scenario:
Broker 1: Stand alone AMQ broker (JDBC Oracle backend, SSL)
Broker 2: Stand alone AMQ broker (JDBC Oracle backend, SSL)
SnF Broker A: Configured with network connector: static:(ssl://broker1, ssl://broker2)
Messages sent to SnF Broker A are forwarded to Broker 1 and Broker 2 in a load balanced fashion, even when there are no consumers on Broker 1 and Broker 2.
However, in the event that Broker 1 and Broker 2 are taken down, the SnF Broker A will only send messages to Broker 1 (based on being listed first in the static:// uri-- switching order was tested and behavior confirmed.), even if both Broker 1 and Broker 2 are brought back up at the same time.
Question 1: What is the defined behavior of the static:// URI? The documentation and implementation seem inconsistent. Is the "load balancing" effect expected?
Question 2: Depending on the answer to Question 1, Is it a bug if the SnF broker does not forward messages to Broker 2 after a restart of Broker 2?
Thank you,
Matt