activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From red3 <>
Subject Re: [Un]reliable:// network of AMQ brokers with Lingo
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:33:17 GMT

James.Strachan wrote:
> On 6/7/06, red3 <> wrote:
>> What are the known problems with the existing networks-of-brokers
>> strategy
> Its a long story; but basically lots of bugs have been fixed since 3.x

So would you wholeheartedly recommend using networks of brokers in ActiveMQ
What scenarios is it suited for?
Or is this not really suited to our application? (Lingo as a RPC from SWING
to server-side services/plus pub/sub between services with reliable

The only way we can say this is reliable right now is to use only one broker
as I see it, which defeats the object of our HA environment.

James.Strachan wrote:
>> and why was it necessary to introduce the master-slave strategy?
> Master/Slave is quite different to Networks. Networks are about
> storing and forwarding messages from broker to broker. Master/Slave is
> about replicating messages to a pair of brokers so that if a broker
> goes down the other is a hot standby and can failover fast (which
> seems to be what folks want most of the time).
> In the 3.x days folks would often use networks when they really wanted
> master/slave

What we want is reliable failover! If this is the recommended way to do it
then great. However, it will be tough for me to convince the operations guys
to change strategy (and move up to a major, pre-release milestone) at this
stage in the game (for this project, anyway!)

James.Strachan wrote:
>> What if we wanted more than two brokers in a master-slave configuration?
>> Is
>> this possible?
> You can have pairs of master/slave brokers in a network. But we don't
> support more than 1 slave right now.

But would you honestly recommend this in a production environment at this
early stage of the feature's development?

James.Strachan wrote:
>> After a master goes down, how do you intend that it is restarted?
>> Manually?
> So the slave becomes the master automatically. If you want to bring
> the old master back online later on - it will be out of sync so you
> have to take the slave down, copy its files to the old master then
> restart the old master. Thats a manual process right now.

I'm sorry, but at the risk of sounding facetious (which is not my
intention), this doesn't sound like uninterrupted failover to me.

What if you bring up a new broker as the slave to the new master?
Is that feasible, or is it just as messy?

View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at

View raw message