activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From DavidR <david.rosenst...@corp.idt.net>
Subject Re: temporary queue in store and forward environment
Date Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:47 GMT

>If you want clustering (high availability and failover of brokers) you
>really should use Master/Slave instead of Networks...

>http://activemq.apache.org/masterslave.html

Thanks for your quick response.  We like the jdbc master slave but were
concerned about the CPU hit we saw on our database (oracle). The pure
masterslave seems to be problematic in terms of loss of messages if primary
goes down, so we thought store and forward would be best. Are we
misunderstanding something here?

>Well if you don't want to replicate messages to another store, you
>don't even need networks-of-brokers - just running separate brokers is
>fine. The only thing networks of brokers buy you is the ability to
>move messages from one broker to another which you may or may not
>want.

If we run separate brokers we could have a situation where one broker has
consumers and one does not.
We have 2 queues on 2 machines and 2 consumer processes on the 2 machines.
If one consumer goes down, we would want the messages to not get posted
there. So, we think clustering is the answer. 

David
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/temporary-queue-in-store-and-forward-environment-tf3644667s2354.html#a10179345
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message