activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ning Li" <>
Subject RE: Web Clustering support for ActiveMQ
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:28:05 GMT
We have backend servers which host ActiveMQ brokers, and we have a web
application, running on a Web Server, which is the ActiveMQ client
talking to the brokers, it will use failover transport talk to the

In the near future, we are going to use Web Clustering (or Web Farm),
i.e. several Web Servers running at the same time, if one Web Server is
down, another web server will replace it transparently. In order to do
that, the web application shouldn't have any state information in memory
that other Web Servers cannot access, which prevents them from taking
over the job. We are thinking maybe we can make all those
ConnectionState etc. objects serializable, so they can be persisted and
accessed by another Web Server to reconnect to a broker and continue the
work. But we are not sure if they are not other issues we didn't seee
and if this is a feasible solution. Also we'd like to know ActiveMQ
community's thoughts on using ActiveMQ for Web Clustering (Web Farm)


-----Original Message-----
From: James Strachan [] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Web Clustering support for ActiveMQ

On 8/9/06, Ning Li <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a question about using JMS in Web Clustering, which is going to
> be our usage case in the near future. Currently for ActiveMQ, the
> failover is done on the client side by FailoverTransport, all the
> are kept in the memory. If we make the state objects (ConnectionState,
> SessionState etc.) serializable, so that if one Web Server is down,
> another Web Server can use these serialized objects and go from there.
> will this be a feasible solution? Or there are some betters ways to
> support ActiveMQ in Web Clustering case.

I don't quite follow what you are trying to do. Could you explain your
use case a little more please?



View raw message