-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 68
After failover, master and slave both alive #22
Comments
Hi @adnklauser Yes - you're right. I've just checked the latest version of our charts we have locally, and we do indeed have those flags you mention set. The other main difference between our charts and the ones here is in the shared configmap, where it sets: I'll work on a PR for these charts. Hope this helps! |
We face the same issue when tried to run above chart without any persistence for live (master) node Even with : Hence , you get a split brain with running two masters :
Workaround: |
Are there any updates regarding this issue? I want to use this helm chart in k8s production, But the aforementioned issue still exists, and as a workaround am deleting the slave pod when master restarts. I also tried adding the |
@chandras-xl The issue is not with chart but with Artemis cluster configuration itself. |
@andrusstrockiy Thank you! the failover and failback worked after using persistent storage on my k8s cluster. |
Scenario
Restart one master node (
kubectl delete pod xxx
) to simulate a service interruption.Expected behaviour
Slave becomes active immediately and when the master is back up (restarted by k8s) and synchronized, there is still only one active ActiveMQ artemis instance for that master/slave pair.
Actual behaviour
Slave becomes active immediately (✔️), but after k8s restarts the master pod, it, too, is considered active (❌), at least from the perspective of k8s (1/1 pods). The consequence of this is that k8s would route requests to both master and slave (via the service DNS)
Additional information
I haven't really tested much beyond this observation. I don't know if the master node would have actually responded to requests. But I find it a bit weird that the system doesn't return to the original state after a failover.
The Artemis HA documentation suggests to use
<allow-failback>true</allow-failback>
on the slave and<check-for-live-server>true</check-for-live-server>
on the master. I must confess, I don't understand why the chart explicitly configures the opposite, but my experience with Artemis is very limited so far.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: