activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Drolshammer <>
Subject Re: Clustering for HA
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:17:14 GMT
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Erik Drolshammer <> wrote:
>> Hi!

Good morning :)

>> We try to set up two brokers according to [1] to get some redundancy in our
>> solution. The shared filesystem is based on GFS, but it doesn't seem to work
>> that well. The master node use a lot of cpu, but the throughput is horrible.
>> Can anyone point me to some resources describing the setup?
>> Any debug tips?
> The only setup that's needed for the shared filesystem master/slave is
> noting the same data directory location for each ActiveMQ instance.
> That's it. ActiveMQ takes care of the rest based on the filesystem
> locking.

I have this element in activemq.conf on two nodes:

<broker xmlns="" useJmx="true"

       <journaledJDBC dataDirectory="/home/mq"/>

Does this seem correct (and adequate)?

It seems this setup use DerbyDB and not Kahastore. Is this the only 
option? Are there alternative setups that I might try?

> According to the Wikipedia entry for the Google File System (GFS), it
> is mainly used for data that is 'extremely rarely overwritten, or
> shrunk; files are usually appended to or read.'
> Given this essential fact, I'd say that GFS is probably not a good
> candidate for use by ActiveMQ since the ActiveMQ data is in almost a
> constant churn of being written and removed as messages flow through
> the broker. Could this be the cause of the high CPU usage and poor
> throughput?

Perhaps. Btw, I meant Redhat GFS [1], not Google FS. Do you know if 
Redhat FS is a good solution?
Or what setup would you recommend?

We currently use ActiveMQ 5.2.0 on RedHat platform as indicated.


Best regards,

Erik Drolshammer

View raw message