activemq-users mailing list archives

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

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 list...you 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!

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Slave-not-replicating-consumption-with-Pure-Master-Slave-td3767086.html

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

Thanks!

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Torsten Mielke-2 [via ActiveMQ] <
ml-node+3798076-2111902585-140184@n4.nabble.com> 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:
>
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Preferred-config-for-2-node-network-of-brokers-tp3795676p3798076.html
>  To unsubscribe from Preferred config for 2-node network of brokers?, click
> here<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3795676&code=ZGNoZWNrb3dheUBnbWFpbC5jb218Mzc5NTY3Nnw3MDc4NzEwMTU=>.
>
>


-----
Dan Checkoway
dcheckoway gmail com
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Preferred-config-for-2-node-network-of-brokers-tp3795676p3798602.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message