activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Xie <ant_mira...@163.com>
Subject Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:19:07 GMT

Hi Rob! Yes it works now and it do help me out of trouble.
Thank you very much!


rajdavies wrote:
> 
> Hi Mathew,
> 
> could you tell us if there's a an active subscriber on BrokerC for  
> queue test_bj2ts
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Rob
> 
> On 24 Apr 2006, at 06:05, Matthew Xie wrote:
> 
>>
>> Thanks for your reply! James.
>> I do it as your suggestion but it still doesn't work. the problem  
>> still
>> happened.
>> so i paste my configure scripts bellow, is there something wrong or  
>> mistake?
>> if i use jmx console tool to inspect the queue, the BrokerB do have a
>> cousumer from BrokerC,
>> but why it can't get the message from it? is any one meet the  
>> problem before
>> ?
>> and here still a problem puzzles me.
>> In brokerA, if I set the value of "networkTTL" for brokerA's
>> networkConnector is 2, then i send a message to brokerA(brokerA  
>> will store
>> and forward message to brokeB) , now while the brokerB recieving  
>> the message
>> from brokerA, i want it forward the message to BrokerC. so in  
>> brokerB , need
>> i
>> to set the value of "networkTTL" as 2? so which one will work as i  
>> set the
>> "networkTTL" value both of them?
>> I do need your help! Thanks!
>>
>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml(ip:10.1.19.19)
>>  <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
>>          name = bridgeA
>>          dynamicOnly = false
>>          conduitSubscriptions = true
>>          decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>       	<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>       		<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>       	</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>       </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>>  <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
>>          name = bridgeB
>>          dynamicOnly = false
>>          conduitSubscriptions = true
>>          decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>       	<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>       		<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>       	</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>       </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> rajdavies wrote:
>>>
>>> Networks have a time to live property - networkTTL = which by default
>>> is 1 - ie. messages only go one hop. Just increment this number to
>>> the number of hops you want the message to go through
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>> On 21 Apr 2006, at 10:09, Matthew Xie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
>>>> yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
>>>> i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but  i
>>>> want to
>>>> make
>>>> brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to
>>>> brokerC
>>>> (or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to
>>>> reach the
>>>> broker(C|N)
>>>> here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
>>>> brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer
>>>> message to
>>>> brokerC.
>>>> here the configuration uses networks.
>>>> but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to
>>>> brokerB,
>>>> but then brokerB could not
>>>> transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is
>>>> here any
>>>> things wrong?
>>>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml(ip:10.1.19.19)
>>>>  <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>>>> failover="true">
>>>>          name = bridgeA
>>>>          dynamicOnly = false
>>>>          conduitSubscriptions = true
>>>>          decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>>>       	<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>>       		<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>>>       	</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>>       </networkConnector>
>>>>
>>>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>>>>  <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>>>> failover="true">
>>>>          name = bridgeB
>>>>          dynamicOnly = false
>>>>          conduitSubscriptions = true
>>>>          decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>>>       	<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>>       		<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>>>       	</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>>       </networkConnector>
>>>>
>>>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to
>>>> brokerC
>>>> while it recieved message from brokerA.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it you are trying to achieve?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it  
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
>>>>> described here
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some  
>>>>> form
>>>>> of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
>>>>> lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <ant_miracle@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks James!
>>>>>> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have
>>>>>> more than
>>>>>> 3
>>>>>> brokers in use,
>>>>>> it will become more and more complex.
>>>>>> i find a artical says that activemq  can provider such function.
>>>>>> The url is here:
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues 
>>>>>> +work
>>>>>> here I quoted from this artical:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support  
>>>>>> networks of
>>>>>> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so
>>>>>> that we can
>>>>>> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer
>>>>>> sends a
>>>>>> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers
>>>>>> to reach
>>>>>> its final destination."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to
>>>>>> work with
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> so it is appreciate that if  you could show me some examples  
>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default
>>>>>>> messages will
>>>>>>> be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
>>>>>>> consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based
>>>>>>> forwarding).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
>>>>>>> broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>> until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
>>>>>>> messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and
>>>>>>> failover
>>>>>>> (rather than store and forward).
>>>>>>> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <ant_miracle@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>>>> it do works for me.
>>>>>>>> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>>>>>>>> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
>>>>>> AcitveMQ
>>>>>>>> broker2.
>>>>>>>> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ
>>>>>>>> broke3,
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1
and
>>>>>> broker2(and
>>>>>>>> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be  
>>>>>>>> connected .is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will
use
>>>>>>>> broker3
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> transfer message(s) to broker2.  Any replay will be appreciated!
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4022299
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>> -------
>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
>>>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks- 
>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4058503
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>
> 
> 
> 

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4112765
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message