Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.225 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=JHD285RO8o0+Q+Eb1OsaU/OvCgP5QRtZxTOldThmnYq2KiaCK/T2u4Jn07rJ8Ze2scS7DirMZDJybnVEv8HjOiqyTwkTQ+3OqtwHkWuMP38N/e3xWD4JIKI8wXvTeZLvMxcZI4BrtYbuRZGfzHRuRnjiy9W41wWeY2itesf6Exk=
Message-ID: <ec6e67fd0704091523i46b054c2if6a640a7c996a6ad@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:23:51 +0100
From: "James Strachan" <james.strachan@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Load Balancer configuration
In-Reply-To: 
 <B2E52C321789B2499E54141B682F43780D612A6F@LNGDAYEXCP01VA.legal.regn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: 
 <B2E52C321789B2499E54141B682F43780D612975@LNGDAYEXCP01VA.legal.regn.net>
	 <ec6e67fd0704091200u54db4a28pd214a8dca87d5959@mail.gmail.com>
	 <B2E52C321789B2499E54141B682F43780D612A28@LNGDAYEXCP01VA.legal.regn.net>
	 <B2E52C321789B2499E54141B682F43780D612A6F@LNGDAYEXCP01VA.legal.regn.net>

It seems kinda strange to use a ping on a totally separate socket to
decide if another socket can be used. Sounds like a crappy load
balancer to me; can't you just disable the pointless ping and let the
load balancer use a broker/socket until it becomes unresponsive? If
you must have some kinda ping, it should be trivial to write your own
ping POJO and add it to the broker as an interceptor or a Spring bean
(since the ping has nothing at all to do with the broker, its just a
test that the VM is still running)


On 4/9/07, Dhawan, Vikram (LNG-DAY) <vikram.dhawan@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> Hey James,
>
> BTW... I just wanted to let you know that I am not overcrowding the same
> socket. Clients are connecting on 61616 and 61613 and I am using 61617
> for load balancer ping.
>
> I will appreciate your help, if you can suggest me what is the ideal way
> to configure AMQ in this type of environment.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Vik
>
> Hi James,
>
> Actually my AMQ clients are connecting to a VIP which is the load
> balancers IP, and load balancer wants to ping and checks the AMQ
> instance status before it routes the client call. That's why Load
> balancer is sending ping to AMQ instances.
>
> Any idea, how should I configure AMQ instances.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Vik
>
> The ActiveMQ client sends ping commands anyway, so why does the load
> balancer need to shove stuff down the same socket?
>
> On 4/9/07, Dhawan, Vikram (LNG-DAY) <vikram.dhawan@lexisnexis.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am trying to configure multiple AMQ instances with a Load balancer
> > configuration for High availability. Load balancer I am using wants to
> > Ping AMQ instances to do the keep-alive check.  I tried to set that
> > keep-alive port to 61617/61616. every time Load Balancer pings, AMQ
> > throws exception because this is not a real OpenWire/SSL
> communication;
> > but this approach works for few Hrs.
> >
> >
> >
> > But after some time AMQ gets tired of this ping and throws OutofMemory
> > exception. I guess AMQ is growing in memory every time it throws the
> > connection exception and not cleaning up properly.
> >
> >
> >
> > My question is how to manage such a configuration where AMQ's are
> > configured behind a load balancer.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Vik
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>


-- 

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/