activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From RobBugh <>
Subject Re: SAN Hardware for Master/Slave Architecture
Date Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:40:27 GMT

Thanks Tom for the information. When you say 'drdb' do you mean 'drbd', i.e.,

Tom Samplonius-2 wrote:
> ----- "RobBugh" <> wrote:
>> I'm going to install ActiveMQ in a shared file system Master/Slave
>> configuration. I see on the ActiveMQ web site that SAN is suggested as
>> the
>> shared file system. Unfortunately, I don't know much about SAN
>> technology
>> and what choices I have. Is there anyone using SAN that would be
>> willing to
>> share what hardware you are using and any pros and cons to using it,
>> especially as it relates to file level locking?
>   Well, if you are going to use a SAN/NAS device, you will have to get a
> good one, as it will shared between your servers.  If it fails, both
> servers are useless.
>   You really have three choices:  NAS:  CIFS or NFS; SAN:  GFS (cluster
> file system).  If you want to go NAS, a Netapp filer is probably the best,
> and CIFS/NFS locking works.  If you want to go SAN with a cluster
> filesystem, well, I can't really recommend GFS.  The requirements for GFS
> are quite extensive.
>   But even if you go with a SAN solution, you don't need to use file
> locking and ActiveMQ Master/Slave.  You could configure the ActiveMQ using
> a cluster toolset.  On Solaris, the Cluster Suite could easily mount up
> the volume of a failed node, and start any services (ActiveMQ included)
> that the failed node was doing.
>   Personally, I'd avoid the NAS/SAN thing, and use drdb to replicate the
> volume containing the ActiveMQ message store to another server.  And then
> use Hearbeat to start ActiveMQ on the backup server, if the primary fails. 
> Nothing is shared this way.
>   drdb is the solution recommended by the MySQL company for master
> database failover too.  It is a pretty mature solution, but Linux only.
>   You should get a Systems Analyst involved earlier on in this project. 
> Calling in a SAN specialist afterwards is even more expensive.  And SAN
> specialists hate SANs setup by people who didn't fully research or
> understand the technology they deployed.
> Tom

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

View raw message