activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Un]reliable:// network of AMQ brokers with Lingo
Date Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:49:59 GMT
On 6/12/06, Thomas Swindells <tswindells@ndsuk.com> wrote:
> James.Strachan wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Ultimately we'd like a quorum based system where you could have a
> > cluster of N nodes, say N=3 so that so long as 2 broker nodes are
> > communicating, you are fine and the 1 broker node that can't see
> > anyone else would shut down - then you can handle network splits OK.
> >
> > Until we get there I'd recommend running clients on different machines
> > to the master/slave broker unless you are prepared to handle network
> > splits manually when they occur.
> >
>
> Has there been any design work on doing this,

We've had a few design sessions in bars on the back of envelopes ;)
But so far thats about it.


> or (more importantly) on
> automatic replication of state between brokers such that a master can become
> a slave to the (old) slave when it comes back up (so that it would actually
> be possible to use it in a HA system). Has there been any
> designs/brainstorms on how this synchronization should occour/the
> appropraite data gathered?

No - am afraid not.

Its probably easiest to just suspend a broker, checkpoint to disk,
then rsync the file system across to the other broker.

Another option could be to suspend the broker, force a checkpoint in
the journal to JDBC; then do a JDBC <-> JDBC synchronisation; though
this approach will only work with JDBC based persistence and not kaha
(the file system based persistence model)

-- 

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Mime
View raw message