activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Swindells <>
Subject Re: HA system design
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:43:27 GMT

>Re: HA system design  James.Strachan 2006-06-08 12:26  
>On 6/7/06, Thomas Swindells <tswindells@...> wrote:
>> Hi, I'm new to JMS and ActiveMQ

Thank you
>> and need to develope a high available system.
>> From what I have been reading the Master-Slave connection only supports a
>> single failure occouring and then requires both brokers to be restarted,
>> is
>> this correct?

>> If this is the case please could someone suggest to me what then is the
>> best
>> configuration in order to create a rebust high availability system?
>> Are there any advantages/disadvantages to having embeded brokers within
>> each
>> client which then connect to the main broker system or should the client
>> just connect directly to the main broker system?

>So i'd recommend 2 approaches; it kinda depends on your requirements
>really which is best. The easiest option to go with is Master/Slave.
>The issue is if you loose a broker its currently a manual process to
>bring it back online again since we don't yet have an automatic
>old-master <-> new-master synchronization protocol.
Unfortunately this isn't an option, the system needs to be HA meaning a full
failover/failback solution.
Is any work being done on creating the necessary synchronization?

>The other option; if you're using topics and need really high
>performance you could consider using   subscription recovery...
>which basically means if a broker dies, you connect to another broker
>(in a store/forward network so messages on a topic get replicated to
>all available consumers). However by default you'd miss some messages
>during the time between reconnecting & resubscribing, so subscription
>recovery policy allows you to configure a buffer in each broker (say 1
>minutes worth) of messages kept around in RAM so that they can be
>replayed to any new retroactive consumers that reconnect.

>The latter option is crazy fast and does not require any persistence,
>the former option is the solution you should go with if you need
>persistence or use queues.
The later option sounds closer to the solution I need however I do also need
to use some queues in the system. Are there any other solutions which allow
full failover/failback support which do also support queues or is it going
to be a comprimise between one or the other?


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

View raw message