activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sridhar Komandur" <anon2...@komandur.com>
Subject Re: improve master/slave topology
Date Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:58:32 GMT
I like the idea of broker-broker synchronization. One of the  issues to
resolve is how reliable this synch activity needs to be ? A transactional
approach is too heavy weight for the common case.

I think a middle ground based on TCP may be good enough. We can divide the
synchronization into two phases:
- dynamic synch : messages are sent to the partner on an ongoing basis
- bulk synch: a new secondary comes up and its state needs to be brought up
to par with primary

Thanks
Regards
- Sridhar

On 3/6/06, Ning Li <Ning.Li@businessobjects.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a continued discussion about dynamically reintroduce the master
> after a failure, the original discussion is here.
>
> http://forums.activemq.org/posts/list/468.page#1653
>
> James idea about pausing the slave and synchronize two DBs is better
> than stopping the slave and doing a manual sync. But I doubt this is
> acceptable to us, as in real production environment, we won't be able to
> pause the only message broker unless for a really short interval (I
> guess have to less than one minute otherwise the end user will notice
> it).
>
> Maybe a broker-broker synchronization protocol is the ultimate solution,
> just we are not sure how to get there. Any recommendation or
> suggestions?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Ning
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message