activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jcarreira <>
Subject Re: Getting started with ActiveMQ
Date Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:13:24 GMT

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> We have discovery agents and also a discovery transport.  The discovery
> transport uses a discovery agent to find brokers and to connect to 1 of
> them.  The peer protocol implicitly starts up an embedded broker that is
> configured to use a discovery agent so that the broker interconnects with
> the other peer brokers.   So, yes peer brokers uses discovery to find
> peers.  Our discovery agent (multicast based by default) is only used to
> discover other brokers.  The communication between nodes always uses tcp.

Is there any more documentation on peer setup than ?

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Here is a bean that creates a broker that is configured using a
> activemq.xmlin the classpath.
>     <bean id="brokerContainer" class="
> org.apache.activemq.xbean.BrokerFactoryBean">
>       <property name="config" value="classpath:activemq.xml"/>
>     </bean>
> And here is a bean that creates an ActiveMQ connection factory to the
> broker.
>     <bean id="factory"
> class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory
> ">
>         <property name="brokerURL" value="vm://localhost" />
>     </bean>
> Note that broker url must match one of the connectors configured for the
> broker.  By default, all broker can be accessed using the
> "vm://${brokerName}" URL, and the default brokerName is always "localhost"

the "vm://${brokerName}" syntax works no matter how the broker is
configured? It just automatically maps to a broker by that name configured
in this VM?

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> All the brokers can share the SAN.  If you set them up to use the same
> journal files on the SAN, then only 1 of the broker instances will be
> fully
> started.  The other instances pointing at the same journal files will wait
> for the master to fail before taking over the journal (and fully starting
> up).

Ok... Is that the recommended way of doing this? Seems like it will limit
throughput to whatever the master machine can push to disk and scaling the
cluster won't scale up. Not that it really matters for my usecase, since it
will be pretty low traffic... 

Thanks very much for the help Hiram!!
View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at

View raw message