activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Mielke <>
Subject Re: Local shared filesystem master slave with geo-redundant pure master slave
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:26:32 GMT
> Can failover protocol be used for network connectors? 

Yes, please see

> Can destinations and
> messages be shared for HA across the geo-redundant nodes?
Using a network connector you do not share messages between brokers but you allow messages
to travel between brokers.
I.e. when a msg travels to a different broker it is deleted on the local broker. Msgs only
travel to remote brokers within a network of brokers, when there are consumers registered
on the remote broker.
So this will not serve as a master/slave solution.

Master / Slave is typically done on a shared resource (file system or database). This will
be difficult to setup between brokers on different geo locations.
Pure master slave replicates everything but do you really want this over a WAN connection?

Typically users set up master/slave on nodes within one geo location and connect geo location
using a network connector. 

Torsten Mielke

On Sep 28, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Stevo Slavić wrote:

> Hello ActiveMQ users,
> Imagine 4 nodes, 2 per location, on each node on same location/LAN a
> shared filesystem (separate node) used by two local brokers in shared
> filesystem master slave (SFSMS) configuration. Can destinations and
> messages be shared for HA across the geo-redundant nodes?
> Can failover protocol be used for network connectors? Then AMQ brokers
> on one location could connect to brokers on other location via
> failover protocol. Compared to transport connector failover handling,
> if AMQ brokers from one location can not connect to neither of
> failover AMQ brokers on other location (e.g. if other location is down
> completely, neither of the SFSMS nodes are responding), they should
> continue to operate as if nothing happened (slave not responding,
> down). When other location is brought back up, before putting it
> online one will have to sync the message storage manually, just like
> in pure master slave. For each location, other location would be a
> slave, in a pure master slave configuration.
> Does this make sense? Is it feasible with AMQ 5.5.0?
> Regards,
> Stevo.

View raw message