activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Pavlovich <>
Subject Re: Choosing the right HA option
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:25:07 GMT
Hi Zagan-

The shared filesystem is usually faster (10-100x) than the shared 
database approach.  I believe its also simpler to manage.  A queuing 
system is going to thrash the Oracle database, and require a lot of db 
maintenance (or at least it did when I last used it with Oracle 9).

I recommend using the shared filesystem using a SAN (or NFSv4).

Hope this helps,
Matt Pavlovich

On 2/13/12 2:11 AM, Zagan wrote:
> Hello again,
> at the moment I am analysing and evaluating the different Active MQ HA
> possibilities.
> At the Active MQ instance level I found
> * Shared Nothing Master/Slave>  two separate instances
> * Shared Database Master/Slave>  two instances, active-passive, sharing the
> same database
> * Shared File System Master/Slave>  two instances, active-passive, sharing
> the same filesystem
> At the Active MQ client config level I found
> * failover protocol
> At the moment I favor using Shared Database Master/Slave using an Oracle RAC
> DB to eliminate
> the single point of failure on the message persistence layer.
> Under Oracle DB is listed as
> supported database.
> Do you know
> - which versions are supported?
> - is a RAC failover transparent to the Active MQ instance?
> - how is the message persisted in Oracle DB? As BLOB? Can I configure the
> persistence (i.e. to SQL query by Message Id)?
> - which database is best supported?
> - how big is performance impact, if I locate Master, Slave and Oracle DB on
> different systems compared to a single broker instance using local file
> system?
> - Is special configuration of the broker instance needed due to the
> increased latency?
> - Is Shared Database faster than Shared Filesystem?
> Thanks for any help!
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

View raw message