activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2006 05:30:06 GMT
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.
>


Mime
View raw message