Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <11546696.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: ksu <ksusweep@yahoo.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Network of Brokers  & Master / Slave
In-Reply-To: <46951D2E.2050200@raytheon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <11545494.post@talk.nabble.com> <46951D2E.2050200@raytheon.com>


The desires are:

  1) Use zeroconf for brokers to discovery each other in the network
  2) Use zeroconf for message clients to auto-discover brokers it can
connect to
  3) Each broker in the network should (optionally) be highly reliable to
avoid message loss by replicating
      its message store.
  4) the infrastructure should be scalable and be able to increase message
handling capacity by simply 
      adding more nodes without changing any static configuration.

#2 is an issue here. If a message client is configured to connect to a
specific M/S cluster, it's not an issue... but if a client is made to auto
discover brokers and can switch to any arbitration M/S cluster in the
network, there is a racing condition between a slave taking over as as the
new master in its cluster and the message client switching away to another
borker. If the later occurred first, then the client may loss messages as a
result.   

Therefore, I'll assume #2 is not possilbe in this case, and a message client
must specify failover as the protocol and spell out the list of hosts in the
master / slave pairs?


Kit Plummer wrote:
> 
> ksu wrote:
>> Is it possible to have a Network of Brokers where each of the brokers is
>> a
>> cluster of (File sharing) Master / Slave cluster? 
>> 
>> The idea here to to build a system that has good performance
>> characteristics
>> and can be scaled easily by simply adding more brokers.   
>> 
>> I see a couple of potential issues with this and am wondering if anyone
>> has
>> already tried to build something similar.
>> 
> 
> The short answer is yes.  You can manage the links between each broker 
> and create hierarchies to your hearts desire.  Performance _is_ an issue 
> - especially if you are bandwidth conscious.  You'll need to manage, as 
> appropriate, what endpoints/destinations are allowed to be "shared" 
> across your infrastructure (between each broker link).
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how the master/slave system can accommodate 
> horizontal tiers...sorry.
> 
> Kit
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers----Master---Slave-tf4063571s2354.html#a11546696
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.