activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dcheckoway <>
Subject Re: Preferred config for 2-node network of brokers?
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:04:55 GMT

I really appreciate your advice.  To be honest, we came to the same
conclusion originally, but master/slave seems to be doing buggy things,
which is one reason why I've been motivated to move away from it.

I sent an email to this list about the bugs, trying to figure out if what I
was seeing was legit or not, but I never got a reply.  I understand the
nature of this get what you pay for and all that...but if you
guys have time to take a look at the master/slave issue I'm seeing, and at
least sanity check the config, that would be much appreciated!

I'll revive that thread in case email is easier.


On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Torsten Mielke-2 [via ActiveMQ] <> wrote:

> If you want to achieve fault tolerance with failover, then master/slave is
> the way to go.
> Using a network of brokers your clients can still failover to another
> broker instance in the cluster but the state of each broker will not get
> replicated across your network. Every broker will have its own state and
> clients that failover to a different broker instance in the network might
> not receive all msgs.
> Broker networks are rather used for load balancing and scaling and are
> not/less suitable for fault tolerance and high availability.
> Torsten Mielke
> [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3798076&i=0>
> [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3798076&i=1>
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:47 PM, dcheckoway wrote:
> > Thanks Gary.
> >
> > I'm considering switching a master/slave setup (in which the master is
> > stock, out of the box, config) over to network of brokers.  Based on your
> > reply, it sounds like I can simply reconfigure the slave -- changing it
> from
> > slaving to using a duplex networkConnector -- and I won't have to touch
> the
> > existing master.  It will automatically change its role to become a
> member
> > of the 2-node network.
> >
> > My goal, fwiw, is to better utilize the 2nd node (currently just sitting
> > there slaving with no producers/consumers connected) and to move away
> from
> > master/slave.
> >
> > Does all of this sound sane, or am I slightly off the mark in terms of
> how
> > I'm going about it?
> >
> > Thanks!
> ------------------------------
>  If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>  To unsubscribe from Preferred config for 2-node network of brokers?, click
> here<>.

Dan Checkoway
dcheckoway gmail com
View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message