Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2CBA177D6 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 39186 invoked by uid 500); 16 Oct 2015 14:19:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 39144 invoked by uid 500); 16 Oct 2015 14:19:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 39131 invoked by uid 99); 16 Oct 2015 14:19:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:19:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B15C71A07F5 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:19:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.12 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JV2oFNMFKoAm for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:19:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 11AE2429AA for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:19:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkat63 with SMTP id t63so69141151vka.1 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:19:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+odO2wRxZMxvWGxPRLfX+DvAk2nlqy/GRjj5E94LKZU=; b=EoDX6ahldF2w3Xy9Jr5J55xxXMCmWIWeudG3BpB9X1qnI6oISbPCX1nx5jHS74Hfxu J/5sKWEnNstDaD9UQaY8yH4rx6p3IQnOcpeB1D9Dc8usjLgkhQNlAIRZxlbRG2FEd2DQ 3U+scu7QWuBvKNt/lJIbbrGEVQir1dYcI6ujDzraWgPnrw8p6El+kr9rvOWbC0tJZLc6 3XXNw4HYMgevbOuCqYZtVSnIjBTQFC69B69TJP+pBWseyulbeHnykfmqS7i7ViYLdCdF CQ9M3tDBLGPeabLm26ZV9K+ytoKg+pXIiF0vLtq51NTICR0U5Mrd/7oFIkHO+JQIST2O IAzg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.10.16 with SMTP id 16mr10418488vkk.135.1445005146586; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.77.196 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:19:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <784792686.32682626.1445002540167.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <784792686.32682626.1445002540167.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:19:06 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Artemis deployment question From: Clebert Suconic To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You could have the Bridge listening to one subscription for one node.. and sending to the other center... so everything received in one place would be send towards the other center. If you have producers on the other center though things will be complicated..as you would send back what you received and you would by math definition feedback messages on an infinite loop. Just be careful with that part. (you could filter out feedback with an expression though). It's a bit non orthodox but it would work. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Justin Bertram wrote= : > Just to clarify, a bridge only ever goes between two servers. The element contains all the possible destinations of the bridge,= and the bridge will select one of those based on some try/fail logic. The= bridge won't make a connection between the source and every single entry i= n . > > > Justin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Niemann" > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:52:49 AM > Subject: Re: Artemis deployment question > > I've got the cluster working, I'm now trying to configure three or more > brokers with core bridges between each other, such that any one broker ca= n > publish a message to a topic and it be consumed on the other two brokers > (assuming there is a subscription/listener present). > > As I mentioned, I'm using Core Bridges to communicate over a WAN. > Clustering works best in a single data center. > > E.g. > Node 1: JMS client publishes a message to topic Stock.YHOO. > Node 2: JMS client is subscribed to Stock.YHOO and receives message via > core bridge. > Node 3: JMS client is subscribed to Stock.YHOO and receives message via > core bridge. > > The example of a core bridge only includes two brokers. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Clebert Suconic > wrote: > >> Looking at your configuration, you don't need to define the Bridge... th= e >> cluster connection when defined will take care of that part. >> >> an easy way to do that is by using the following: >> >> >> ./artemis create /serverplace --clustered --host localhost >> ./artemis create /serverplace --clustered --host localhost --port-offset= 1 >> >> >> (answer the questions through the input stream) >> >> >> >> that will be using UDP. Take a look at the example I mentioned before as >> well. >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Kevin Niemann >> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm looking into an implementation of ActiveMQ Artemis at my org. I wa= nt >> > to be sure I can use a JMS client to publish to a topic on any node in >> the >> > below diagram and subscribe from any or all other nodes. >> > >> > I've not been able to prove this configuration. The bridge works betwe= en >> > two nodes, but when I add additional nodes it doesn't seem to create m= ore >> > bridges as I would expect. >> > >> > Note that the Core Bridges will be going over the WAN, that's why 4-6 >> > aren't part of the cluster. >> > >> > See some of my broker.xml below. Let me know if you have questions. >> > [image: Inline image 1] >> > *Node 1:* >> > >> > >> >
jms.topic.Node1.#
>> >
>> >
>> > >> > >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.5:61616 >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.6:61616 >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.2:61616 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > jms.topic.CHQ >> > 1000 >> > >> > 1.0 >> > -1 >> > -1 >> > >> > false >> > true >> > 10000000 >> > >> > Node4-connector >> > Node5-connector >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > *Node 5:* >> > >> > >> > >> >
jms.topic.Node5.#
>> >
>> >
>> > >> > >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.2:61616 >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.3:61616 >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.4:61616 >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.5:61616 >> > >> > tcp://192.168.1.6:61616 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > jms.topic.Node5 >> > 1000 >> > 1.0 >> > -1 >> > -1 >> > >> > false >> > true >> > >> > >> > Node1-connector >> > Node2-connector >> > Node3-connector >> > Node4-connector >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Kevin >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Clebert Suconic >> --=20 Clebert Suconic