activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher G. Stach II" <...@ldsys.net>
Subject Re: Topology for resilience and failover
Date Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:05:23 GMT
James Strachan wrote:
> On 4/4/06, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <M.Kunnumpurath@voca.com> wrote:
> By default if you are using either separate brokers or brokers
> networked together in a demand-forwarding network; a message exists on
> one broker at any point in time until its consumed by a client. So if
> a broker goes down; it needs to be restarted (from the persistent disk
> files) to be able to recover messages and send them on their way.
> 
> If you want to deal with catastrophic hardware failure (loosing disks)
> - assuming you have no SAN/RAID hardware - then we have a Master/Slave
> configuration which ensures that every message is replicated onto a
> slave broker so there are 2 physical copies at any point in time -
> then the master can failover to the slave.
> 
> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
> 
> But this does affect throughput. So its all a balancing act between
> throughput, latency, reliability and risk etc
> 

What do you envision a Network of Brokers + Master-Slave broker
configuration would look like?  It was mentioned previously on the list,
but I don't think I understand how it would be set up.  Given, for a
brief example, a 3-node cluster, is a configuration such as this
supported?  How would it be configured?

Network of Brokers: (Go go fixed width font!)

---+-------+-------+---
   |       |       |
1master 2master 3master

Master-Slave:

1master -> 2slave
2master -> 3slave
3master -> 1slave

How would the network of masters be configured to know how to switch to
the proper slave?

Are there plans for a more elegant solution to load balanced HA such as
this?  It's basically next peer replication.

-- 
Christopher G. Stach II

Mime
View raw message