activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB for Message Persistency only?
Date Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:01:41 GMT
Shared file system master slave is fine.
The problem is with "journal + jdbc" as the journal part of that is local to
a broker instance.


On 29 April 2010 17:02, KRISHNAS <krishna_seelam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Activemq recommends 'Shared file System Master Slave'  as one of the HA
> approaches for failover in clustering environment.
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>
>
> But you say it is not appropriate. Do you see any cons of it?
>
> Thank you for replies.
>
>
> Gary Tully wrote:
> >
> > For fail over, the batching nature of the journal is not appropriate, you
> > need to send messages directly to the store, either jdbc or file based.
> >
> > On 29 April 2010 02:51, KRISHNAS <krishna_seelam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks lot for your reply Gary,
> >>
> >> We have also looked at the 'jdbc statemetns', unfortunately as per DB2,
> >> any
> >> statement on the lock table - could cause error, so jdbc statements may
> >> not
> >> help (Still we are investigating though)
> >>
> >> So we have to use either specific data source for the locking or we may
> >> end
> >> up writing our own file system based locker class. If so, we will
> >> contribute
> >> it.
> >>
> >> We are also looking at the 'Shared file System Master Slave' approach -
> >> which uses the Journal + datasource using <journaledJDBC ... >.  There
> it
> >> uses the File system for locking and permanent DB for persistency.
> >>
> >> But, as per Journal architecture, it may not store all the messages in
> >> the
> >> DB (it only persists the left over messages at checkpoint point). But we
> >> want ALL the messages received by the broker should persist  in the
> >> permanent DB.
> >>
> >> So is there any way to force the Journal to persist all messages in the
> >> permanent DB (probably by ignoring the check point) or any other
> >> approach?
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Krishna.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28395879.html
> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://blog.garytully.com
> >
> > Open Source Integration
> > http://fusesource.com
> >
> >
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28402548.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
http://blog.garytully.com

Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com

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