Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5710116.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: superuser <peger@automotive.com>
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: HA features
In-Reply-To: <ec6e67fd0608080210x43c218d7uc7d36a8e3bb28ab2@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <5696101.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <ec6e67fd0608080210x43c218d7uc7d36a8e3bb28ab2@mail.gmail.com>


We would heavily prefer a shared-nothing architecture, and so for this reason
are not considering a "shared backend" scenario.

I had not considered a network of Master/Slave brokers, would this look, in
a two machine configuration, something like:

MACHINE1:
   MQ-A-PRIMARY
   MQ-B-BACKUP

MACHINE2:
   MQ-A-BACKUP
   MQ-B-PRIMARY

Where backups would be configured as normal and all servers would be
configured as a network of brokers. Clients would have a connection string
like
"failover://(tcp://MQ-A-PRIMARY:PORT,tcp://MQ-B-PRIMARY:PORT,tcp://MQ-A-BACKUP:PORT,tcp://MQ-B-BACKUP:PORT)"

Would this be a minimal HA cluster?

Incidentally, the "topology" section of the site was not necessarily crystal
clear as to what a typical configuration would look like. I would think
something like a list of use-cases, with a diagram of the topology and some
lniks to .conf files for each would be VERY beneficial. IE, if you are
looking for HA, do X; if you are looking for highly scalable
read-infrastructure, do Y; etc. Just a suggestion, ignore at will ;-)

Thanks for the help regardless.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/HA-features---limitations-tf2069049.html#a5710116
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.