activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bobsponge <ruben.gar...@tecnicasdeingenieria.com>
Subject Re: Multiple broker instances
Date Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:15:30 GMT

Hello,

Ok, It's a little long to explain, but to sum up, imagine two groups, group
G1 is composed of nodes A and B and group G2 is composed of nodes C and D.
G1 must deal with information I1 and G2 with I2.
Each node from the same group acts the same way and they've a local broker
and persits locally so queues in nodes A and B store information I1 (mirror
nodes, if one fails the other one takes over and the service continues) and
the same thing happens in the group G2. When some data is requested it must
be removed from all the group's nodes so the storage media from a group
should be shared (db or file system).
At some point node D fails and the  system controller reconfigure the nodes
and force the node B to join group G2 (it will be joined to G1 as well) so B
must synchronize the node D persistence storage in order to mirror this node
(node B will be a node A mirror and a node D mirror). Because a shared file
system scheme won't be used for the information persistence,a shared db will
be tested. G1 and G2 will use their own shared db (DB1 and DB2). If node D
fails and B must join to group G2, it seems easy to start a different broker
in B with shared db DB2 as the persistence media. Anyway, there are many
other ways to get the same behavior but now I'm checking if this is
feasible. 

Greetings


James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> On 7/10/07, bobsponge <ruben.garcia@tecnicasdeingenieria.com> wrote:
>> Hello James,
>>
>> I need two or more brokers working at the same time in the same machine
>> because the application is composed of several machines (nodes). Every
>> node
>> belongs to a group. In general data is transferred between nodes from the
>> same group, no problem. But a node can bind to another group so the same
>> node can communicates with two (or more) groups. The information must
>> separately persists in this node so two brokers are needed, because of
>> the
>> persistence issues...
> 
> I still don't get it; why 2 brokers in the same JVM on the same box?
> 
> Usually for high performance a broker persists to the local hard
> drive; so I don't understand the benefit from having 2 different
> brokers writing to 2 different directories (or even different DBs)
> 
>> I tried to configure the brokers with different names building an URI
>> like
>> this: tcp://localhost:50000?broker.brokerName=broker1 , but it didn't
>> work
>> at all.
> 
> 
> You configure the broker names in the activemq.xml. See the brokerName
> atttribute in the one that comes with the binary distro
> 
> -- 
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-broker-instances-tf4035160s2354.html#a11517382
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message