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 Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:47:57 GMT
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!

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Gary Tully [via ActiveMQ] <
ml-node+3796717-255284436-140184@n4.nabble.com> wrote:

> both of those options are largely the same.
>
> The idea of duplex is that a spoke broker only needs to know about a
> hub broker to get a bidirectional networks and a single connection is
> shared for forwarding in either direction.
> When there is a firewall in between, only one port needs to be opened
> so duplex is easier to configure in this case.
>
> With each configuring a static networkconnector to the other, there
> are two unidirectional network connections.
>
> On 7 September 2011 10:28, dcheckoway <[hidden email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3796717&i=0>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like your advice on setting up a simple 2-node network of brokers.  I
>
> > will have both consumers & producers each connected to one of the nodes
> > (randomly), and I'd like messages to flow to any consumer connected to
> > either node.
> >
> > Assume "node1" and "node2" are the hostnames, and consumers and producers
>
> > will connect with:
> > failover:(tcp://node1:61616,tcp://node2:61616)?randomize=true
> >
> > I'm wondering which of the following configurations would be "preferred",
> if
> > there are any advantages or disadvantages to either:
> >
> > === Option 1: only one node specifically configured for network, i.e.
> >
> > node1 is set up with no networkConnector, just a stock out-of-the-box,
> > otherwise standalone broker.
> > node2 is set up with:
> >      <networkConnector uri="static:(tcp://node1:61616)" duplex="true"/>
> >
> > === Option 2: both nodes aware of each other, i.e.
> >
> > node1 is set up with:
> >      <networkConnector uri="static:(tcp://node2:61616)"/>
> > node2 is set up with:
> >      <networkConnector uri="static:(tcp://node1:61616)"/>
> >
> > Any advice on this?  I want to make sure I understand the purpose of
> > "duplex".  If my suggestions above imply that I'm clueless about it,
> please
> > clue me in...  :-)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -----
> > Dan Checkoway
> > dcheckoway gmail com
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Preferred-config-for-2-node-network-of-brokers-tp3795676p3795676.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://fusesource.com
> http://blog.garytully.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>  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-tp3795676p3796717.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-tp3795676p3797227.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message