activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>
Subject Re: network of brokers question
Date Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:44:07 GMT
Hi Ami,

when you say they are not even, what the exact ratio is?

BTW. regarding performance, I see that you used smaller value for the
prefetch size. Generally higher values have better performances. Also,
check out conf/activemq-throughput.xml for some tips regarding
increasing the throughput.


Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net



On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:23 AM, ami.rozen <amir@peer39.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Clark
>
> Thanks for your answer.
> We looked into the client-server architecture but we don't think it is
> better for us since we cache the messages in memory and don't write them to
> the disk. We rather lose some messages but have a fast handling.
> If you think we are wrong please advise.
> One other question, we looked into the network of brokers NetworkConnector
> Properties configuration and had a hard time to understand what these mean:
> 1. dynamicOnly
> 2. conduitSubscriptions
> Can they boost our performance ?
>
> Thank you
> Ami
>
>
> cobrien wrote:
>>
>> Ami,
>> Well the nice thing about ActiveMQ is almost everything is configurable.
>> From your description I gather you have a requirement for high
>> availability.
>> If this is the  only reason for using multiple brokers then using a
>> master-slave
>> would be simplify things  for you.
>>
>> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>>
>> Clark
>>
>> www.ttmsolutions.com
>> ActiveMQ reference guide at
>> http://bit.ly/AMQRefGuide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ami.rozen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> We are using the activemq brokers in a high scale production environment.
>>> To prevent downtime we decided to configure the brokers to work as a
>>> network of brokers.
>>> There are 2 brokers which use a fixed list of urls to connect to each
>>> other.
>>> The clients and services use the failover url with a list of the
>>> available brokers.
>>> Currently we have 2 clients that connect to the brokers and we saw (in
>>> the brokers UI) that the messages aren't distributed in an even way.
>>> 1) Is this ok ?
>>> 2) is there a configuration to distribute the messages evenly between the
>>> brokers ?
>>> 3) Is there an additional configuration which can bust the performance ?
>>> We don't mind losing messages if one of the brokers is down.
>>>
>>> The configuration we are using in the broker xml file is:
>>>         <networkConnectors>
>>>             <networkConnector name="default-dev13"
>>> uri="static://(tcp://host_name:61616)"/>
>>>         </networkConnectors>
>>>         <!-- The transport connectors ActiveMQ will listen to -->
>>>         <transportConnectors>
>>>             <transportConnector name="openwire"
>>> uri="tcp://localhost:61616?jms.prefetchPolicy.queuePrefetch=100&amp;jms.useAsyncSend=true&amp;wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration=0"/>
>>>             <transportConnector name="ssl" uri="ssl://localhost:61617"/>
>>>             <transportConnector name="stomp"
>>> uri="stomp://localhost:61613"/>
>>>             <transportConnector name="xmpp"
>>> uri="xmpp://localhost:61222"/>
>>>         </transportConnectors>
>>> Thank you
>>> Ami
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/network-of-brokers-question-tp29020595p29082649.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Mime
View raw message