activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sridhar Komandur" <anon2...@komandur.com>
Subject Re: [activemq-user] Network of Brokers ...
Date Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:41:32 GMT
Thanks Rob ... I have gone through the link, andcould you please clarify :

1. when multiple routes exist btw producer and consumer brokers, are you
suggesting
  that under 'normal' circumstances duplicates are prevented ? What
circumstances
  is it prevented (and which ones result in duplicates ?).

2.  NetworkConnector 'name' property:
   name bridge name of the network - for more than one network connector
between the same two brokers - use different names
example (

  Producer-- A- B-C-D ---Consumer
                   |          |
                   +---E---+

2.1 Does 'name' apply in the above scenario - A and D have multiple paths,
but not direct NetworkConnectors.

2.2 How does A route based on 'name', using the above example (cyclic case)
?

3. I would prefer not having to be restricted to acyclic (tree) graphs, for
several reasons:
    - more flexibility in routing (e.g., admin reasons)
    - single point of failures (I undertand failover tranport will create
NetworkConnector to another   broker - but the /flash flood effects of the
distributed system may lead to instability)
   - traffic saturation and inability to take advantage of multiple paths
(load balancing)
     for different flows.

4. I would like to run some preliminary  ideas by you offline to deal with
duplicate messages - unless this  feature is deemed off the ActiveMQ
roadmap.

Thank you Sir !
Regards
- Sri

On 2/24/06, Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Sridhar,
>
> ActiveMQ does try and prevent sending duplicates - but there are
> circumstances where it would be possible for multiple routes across a
> network to result in duplicates. I'd advise you to only use acyclic
> graphs, or where this can't be avoided, use well named destinations
> and network filters.
>
> See http://docs.codehaus.org/display/ACTIVEMQ/Networks+of+Brokers
>
> cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> On 23 Feb 2006, at 22:08, Sridhar Komandur wrote:
>
> > Rob, thanks for your email.
> >
> > Would you mind clarifying item 1 below, what if there are more than
> > one path
> > between producer and a consumer for the given networkTTL ?
> >
> > Will the consumer_broker receive as many messages as the number of
> > paths ?
> > (I hope not). Could you please elaborate on the details of message
> > routing
> > in this case ?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Regards
> > - Sridhar
> >
> > On 2/19/06, Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Networks are being updated currently for release 4.0
> >> Consumers are propagated around the network - but within constraints:
> >>
> >> 1. networkTTL - number of hops (brokers) that this information will
> >> pass through - networkTTL also applies to messages dispatched as well
> >> 2. exclusiveDestinations - can exclude destinations from network
> >> traffic (can use wild-cards etc)
> >> 3. inclusiveDestinations - can specify only destinations which are in
> >> the inclusive list to be propagated around the network
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll update the wiki with this information once we're satisfied its
> >> working.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >> On 13 Feb 2006, at 23:15, Sridhar Komandur wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> 1. Can anyone clarify how the routing info is shared within
> >>> Network of
> >>> Brokers
> >>>      - is the producer/subscription info known to all the brokers
> >>> in the
> >>> network ? As I understand,
> >>>     4.0 follows demand-forwarding for the actual message flow.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Has anyone /deployed/thought of/ an architecture where multiple
> >>> "Network
> >>> of Brokers" clusters would be deployed ?
> >>>      (not unlike ISP domains, within the same enterprise - for
> >>> capacity or
> >>> ownership reasons).
> >>>     I was wondering how  "routes" can be selectively disseminated
> >>> between
> >>> the clusters.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any insights into the above.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Regards
> >>> - Sridhar Komandur
> >>
> >>
>
>

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