activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From AD <straightfl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Failover / Persistence
Date Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:40:33 GMT
does pure master/slave replicate the messages or do you lose any messages
that were on the master when it died ?

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:31 AM, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2008/7/23 AD <straightflush@gmail.com>:
> > Hello,
> >  I am relatively new to activemq and I am trying to find the optimal
> setup
> > for a failover cluster of brokers.  What i have is the following
> >
> >  2 physical servers each running a broker
> >  2 physical servers each running a consumer
> >  1 Java application implementing JMS API producer which will likely use
> > failover:// protocol.
> >
> >  I am trying to figure out from the docs the recommended failover
> approach.
> >  I dont have a SAN but I will have NFS, however it seems there are some
> > locking issues with using NFS as a shared storage.
> >
> >  What i would ideally like is a basic master/slave setup where all
> consumers
> > connect to master and then fail over to the slave ( I understand current
> > release does not support failing back to primary) in addition to message
> > persistence so no messages are lost if they are unprocessed on the master
> > queue.
> >
> >  Any recommendations here?
>
> As Hans says, Pure Master/Slave is a good option - particularly as it
> doesn't require any special shared network drive or IP failover
> mechanism.
>
> I've worked with a number of customers who have gone with the shared
> file system approach; but rather than relying on shared file system
> file locking (which is sometimes unreliable), they've used a Virtual
> IP system to ensure that only one broker is running on the file system
> at any time - and using a unix Virtual IP system to fail over to
> another master.
>
> Either approach works fine; the latter is certainly a bit faster and
> easier from an ActiveMQ perspective - plus avoids the failback issue;
> but requires knowledge of setting up Virtual IP with failover etc.
>
> I tend to recommend the approach which suits your internal expertise &
> facilities the best. e.g. if you've a SAN or clustered oracle already;
> use that - if you're already using a Virtual IP system - hey use that
> too if you like; failing that there's Pure Master/Slave which is fine
> too (though does require manual fail back)
>
> --
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
> Open Source Integration
> http://open.iona.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message