1 Reply Latest reply on Mar 12, 2012 4:38 PM by clebert.suconic

    Queue already exists SEVERE messages during fail-over

    rhuiser
    rhuiser Mar 12, 2012 1:14 PM

      Hi all,

       

      During fail-over (shared storage over NFSv3 -- yes it is slow, but only used for functional, single user testing) I get the following SEVERE messages in my console:

       

      [Old I/O server worker (parentId: 29292935, [id: 0x01bef987, hornetq02/192.168.56.112:5445])] 17:47:55,310 SEVERE [org.hornetq.core.protocol.core.ServerSessionPacketHandler]  Caught exception

      HornetQException[errorCode=101 message=Queue 05d842de-7d0f-47dc-91a3-39fccfe62dde already exists]

                at org.hornetq.core.server.impl.HornetQServerImpl.createQueue(HornetQServerImpl.java:1685)

                at org.hornetq.core.server.impl.HornetQServerImpl.createQueue(HornetQServerImpl.java:1028)

                at org.hornetq.core.server.impl.ServerSessionImpl.createQueue(ServerSessionImpl.java:394)

                at org.hornetq.core.protocol.core.ServerSessionPacketHandler.handlePacket(ServerSessionPacketHandler.java:230)

                at org.hornetq.core.protocol.core.impl.ChannelImpl.handlePacket(ChannelImpl.java:474)

                at org.hornetq.core.protocol.core.impl.RemotingConnectionImpl.doBufferReceived(RemotingConnectionImpl.java:496)

                at org.hornetq.core.protocol.core.impl.RemotingConnectionImpl.bufferReceived(RemotingConnectionImpl.java:457)

                at org.hornetq.core.remoting.server.impl.RemotingServiceImpl$DelegatingBufferHandler.bufferReceived(RemotingServiceImpl.java:459)

                at org.hornetq.core.remoting.impl.netty.HornetQChannelHandler.messageReceived(HornetQChannelHandler.java:73)

       

      From our application code we do not create queues; all queue/topic definitions are in hornetq-jms.xml.

       

      - It looks like the backup-server tries to (re)create the queues/topics when the live-server fails?

      - Am I missing something in the configuration or is this works as expects?

       

      If so... I would suggest to lower the loglevel to WARN (or maybe even INFO) to prevent these messages alerting IT staff unnecessary.

       

      All the best,

      Robin