activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From NerdyNick <>
Subject Re: "Network of Brokers" and persistence
Date Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:10:05 GMT
I have however also notice that persistent doesn't appear to handle
failover well when in a network of brokers setup. For instance say you
have 3 brokers with a consumer attached to each. All connected in a
persistent style. If broker 1 goes down and the consumer switches over
to broker 2. Any messages passed during that period are lost, but I
can understand that, but what goes weird is that when broker 1 comes
back online. It still builds up messages to be delivered to the
consumer that use to be attached to it.

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Johan Edstrom <> wrote:
> If you think of persistence in the same way you would a POP3 store,
> i.e the object of the persistence store is more to provide reliability in that
> 1: Write incoming message to disk,
> 2: Maintain a journal of actions taken to the message
> 3: Remove the message from the store once consumed.
> So the persistence would be invoked on every broker that participated in a message exchange
> to ensure consistency across the brokers. There is no master storage nor is a message
'replicated' to all nodes.
> /je
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Steve Cohen wrote:
>> I am in the phase of imagining what using ActiveMQ to design a wrapper around a legacy
process would look like, and reading the book, which I have bought.  I should say that I
am impressed so far with ActiveMQ and the mapping of what it does with what I am trying to
do seems very good.
>> I am trying to understand the relation of persistence to the "network of brokers"
concept.  In a single standalone broker deployment, it's simple.  You either enable persistence
of one flavor or another, or you don't.
>> But what does this look like in the "network of brokers" concept?  There is something
appealing in this model to my situation, of deploying a server-side application in which each
instance has an instance of the broker embedded within it, but what are the consequences in
terms of persistence?  Would there just be one persistent store, with a suitable backup arrangement?
>> Please help me untangle the consequences of these two concepts, which are starting
to boggle my mind a bit.

Nick Verbeck - NerdyNick

View raw message