Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sslavic@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6264A399-24E8-4D94-8B16-BD4C5F8609B9@fusesource.com>
References: 
 <CAAUywg-FP8H7qpENrkh9AaGBGvkk+g83cYdbwcAo1Hv2qLdNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<6264A399-24E8-4D94-8B16-BD4C5F8609B9@fusesource.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:41:22 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAAUywg9Ld1iozZHtfarMhC+ODYq1qMn_4iQu81dC826Opap4EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Local shared filesystem master slave with geo-redundant pure
 master slave
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Stevo_Slavi=C4=87?= <sslavic@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Torsten for reply and clarifications!

Obviously I didn't understand well the difference between master/slave
and network of brokers.

I think performance constraints are not too high, having HA is more
important - message received must be consumed if at least one broker &
consumer is running. Will check requirements and get back.

Regards,
Stevo.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Torsten Mielke <torsten@fusesource.com> wr=
ote:
>> Can failover protocol be used for network connectors?
>
> Yes, please see http://tmielke.blogspot.com/2011/09/activemq-network-brid=
ge-to-masterslave.html
>
>> 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 y=
ou 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, whe=
n 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 dat=
abase). This will be difficult to setup between brokers on different geo lo=
cations.
> 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
> torsten@fusesource.com
> tmielke@blogspot.com
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Stevo Slavi=C4=87 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>