activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From artnaseef <...@artnaseef.com>
Subject Re: JMS to JMS Bridge vs Network of Brokers
Date Wed, 14 May 2014 16:34:42 GMT
The JMS bridge is a good solution to use.  I disagree with the statement in
the referenced discussion that the demand-forwarding bridge is always more
efficient and a better choice always for ActiveMQ-to-ActiveMQ.

Without getting into too much detail, the JMS bridge is a good choice when
there is message flow that only ever crosses the network bridge in one
direction.  It will not work when messages need to flow both ways across the
bridge.  Demand-forwarding involves overhead that limits scaling which isn't
there with the JMS bridge.  Using the JMS bridge in this manner will scale
very nicely.  It also allows disabling of advisories, which are the biggest
inhibitor of scaling ActiveMQ networks-of-brokers.

One question comes to mind - is there an activemq-only static
(non-demand-forwarding) bridge?

Looking at the broker A and broker B configs, it appears that broker A is
configured to forward messages for all Queues to broker B, and broker B is
configured to forward messages for certain Queues to A.  This will create a
circular loop.  While ActiveMQ has loop protection, I would need to research
if it's effective when the JMS bridge is in-use.  If so, that could explain
the messages shown as in the queues, but inaccessible as that happens when
message TTLs (max network hops) expire.

Can you use a JMS bridge on broker A that only forwards the Queues needed?



--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JMS-to-JMS-Bridge-vs-Network-of-Brokers-tp4681063p4681112.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message