Database Locker Vs. Lease Database Locker

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Database Locker Vs. Lease Database Locker

Anand R
Hi -
    I would like to know what type of Locker is recommended when using jdbc
persistence. I see that the configuration for mySQL in
http://activemq.apache.org/jdbc-support.html does not mention anything
about the type of locker.

In http://activemq.apache.org/pluggable-storage-lockers.html, though the
Lease based locker is recommended over the Database Locker, the Lease-based
one is NOT mentioned as the default.
I followed the configuration in http://activemq.apache.org/jdbc-support.html,
which I believe is using the default Database locker. Are the problems
mentioned with default locker still valid? Should I consider moving to
Lease-based? If so, why? and if not, why not?

Appreciate the help.

Thanks,
Anand
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Database Locker Vs. Lease Database Locker

Anand R
Can one of the experts or someone with JDBC Master/Slave deployment
experience comment on this please? The documentation is ambiguous.
Thanks,
Anand

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Anand R <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi -
>     I would like to know what type of Locker is recommended when using
> jdbc persistence. I see that the configuration for mySQL in
> http://activemq.apache.org/jdbc-support.html does not mention anything
> about the type of locker.
>
> In http://activemq.apache.org/pluggable-storage-lockers.html, though the
> Lease based locker is recommended over the Database Locker, the Lease-based
> one is NOT mentioned as the default.
> I followed the configuration in
> http://activemq.apache.org/jdbc-support.html, which I believe is using
> the default Database locker. Are the problems mentioned with default locker
> still valid? Should I consider moving to Lease-based? If so, why? and if
> not, why not?
>
> Appreciate the help.
>
> Thanks,
> Anand
>