activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ktecho <kte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: High Availability and Load Balancing
Date Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:41:58 GMT

In a store and forward network of master/slave clusters, all the brokers
receive messages? That would be nice, as that way we can have all the
parsers from all the machines working and busy. That's why I was looking for
Active/Active mode.



James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> You can create a store and forward network of master/slave clusters if
> you really need to - though I doubt you'll ever need to - but at least
> you can tell your customer that yes, if you need to, you can run
> multiple master/slave clusters in a store/forward network.
> 
> On 20/11/2007, ktecho <ktecho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't done any performance test by now (besides testing some
>> sending/receiving stuff in my notebook), but you sure can understand that
>> I
>> must provide a Scalability Guide to my customer, so even if I can process
>> "one hundred million messages a second", I need to provide him with a
>> guide
>> just in case he need "two hundred million messages a second". That's why
>> I
>> need to fully understand how this works in ActiveMQ, but I found the docs
>> to
>> be a bit messy. Could be that english is not my native tongue, too.
>>
>> The machines that runs the brokers should do some more work (some parsing
>> and inserting into file or BBDD), so it would be nice if we can use all
>> of
>> them (even if "all" is 2 or 3) as Masters, as using Slaves means
>> something
>> like calling the solution Active/Pasive, instead of Active/Active.
>>
>> Could I use two or three (just in case I need them) different Active
>> (master) brokers using journaled files or database, and telling them that
>> if
>> one of them fails, the others takes its messages and routes them to
>> consumers? Or that can only be done with Master/Slave (Active/Passive)
>> configurations?
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>>
>> James.Strachan wrote:
>> >
>> > On 19/11/2007, ktecho <ktecho@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Something like 860 KB/sec of text encapsulated into JMS messages of
>> about
>> >> 150
>> >> bytes each one, coming from 42 machines. The problem is that we need
>> to
>> >> do
>> >> some parsing of the messages on the machine, and that the number of
>> >> clients
>> >> could potentially grow. That's why we need some brokers to be Master.
>> >
>> > So here's the common misconception. You can have thousands and
>> > thousands of JMS clients processing messages concurrently on queues.
>> > However a single message broker (or master/slave cluster) can deal
>> > with this kind of volume without breaking into a sweat.
>> >
>> > Have you tried doing some performance benchmarking yet?
>> >
>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq-performance-module-users-manual.html
>> >
>> >
>> >> The only way to provide HA and Load Balancing is to increase the
>> number
>> >> of
>> >> server in pairs (master/slave)?
>> >
>> > See this for more background
>> > http://activemq.apache.org/clustering.html
>> >
>> > --
>> > James
>> > -------
>> > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> > Open Source Integration
>> > http://open.iona.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13848519
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source Integration
> http://open.iona.com
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13860437
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message