activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From spiderman2 <>
Subject Re: [Spam: 5.0] Recover a failed Broker's Journal (by Database of Another Broker)
Date Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:50:18 GMT

You're right, I read that JDBC Persistance doesn't work with fast
journalling. But I can't understand why not? It sounds like it would be an
ideal HA scenario.

The 3 Master Slave Options:

1) Pure: Doesn't support an automatic failback - meaning after a failure
I'll only have 1 Broker who may eventually fail and my system will die.

2) JDBC - Too slow. I'm getting rates of 200ms/ synchronous message. (Altho
i will explore transactions under async message)

3) SAN - which is an option but expensive!!

I really like the Fast Journaling, but is it not supported in any HA
Does anyone have a recommended deployment of HA with minimal to no message
loss (that isn't as slow as JDBC persistance)?

James.Strachan wrote:
> On 2/22/07, spiderman2 <> wrote:
>> I'm looking into clustered HA deployments with zero message loss under
>> one
>> point-of-failure.
>> My best options seem to be:
>>   A) Network of Brokers with fast journaling and jdbc persistance
> Networks of brokers are for store and forward, not for HA of messages.
> i.e. a message only exists on one broker in a network at any point in
> time - its never HA across brokers
>>   B) JDBC Master Slave
> Yes - the 3 master/slave alternatives are what you need
>> BUT, what if broker dies before it writes its batch to the database, but
>> after it completes its fast-journal?
> It depends which of the 3 master/slave alternatives you are using -
> but with JDBC Master/Slave you don't use the journal
> -- 
> James
> -------

View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

View raw message