activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rallavagu <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ deployment
Date Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:33:05 GMT
Raffi, Thanks. This is interesting.

What do you mean by "If connection fails, assuming transport connector 
is configured to update client with cluster changes" as the client is 
configured with only "failover:(tcp://eventbus:61616)"?

On 12/1/15 4:23 PM, Basmajian, Raffi wrote:
> That's exactly the configuration we're building; M/S pairs with NoB, connected via complete
> All clients connect using wide-IP "failover:(tcp://eventbus:61616)", that's it. We did
this for two reasons:
> 1) to avoid messy failover configuration on the client,
> 2) to avoid client-reconfig when topology is scaled out.
> Each broker has a special Http service that runs inside broker and queries local JMX,
responds with following JSON:
> {role:master}  or {role:slave}
> This makes it easy to implement heartbeat logic using hardware load-balancer, like F5.
> F5 now pings each broker every 10s to determine which ones are active and which are "master";
slaves and inactive nodes are removed from F5 pool.
> When client connects using "failover:(tcp://eventbus:61616)", DNS routes to F5 first,
then F5 connects client to master broker in nearest datacenter; this is done for  initial
connection only.
> If connection fails, assuming transport connector is configured to update client with
cluster changes, the client will reconnect on its own; F5 does not handle that, which is exactly
what we wanted. Control initial connect to simplify client config, but leverage ActiveMQ cluster
aware clients library to manage connection failovers.
> Hope that helps,
> Raffi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rallavagu []
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:57 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ deployment [ EXTERNAL ]
> Now, I am getting a clearer picture about the options. Essentially, NOB provides load
balancing while Master/Slave offers pure failover. In case I go with combination where a Master/Slave
cluster is configured with NOB with other Master/Slave cluster how would the client failover
configuration would work?
> Will a set of consumers always connect a one of the Master/Slave cluster? In this case
how would load balance work? Thanks.
> On 12/1/15 11:32 AM, Basmajian, Raffi wrote:
>> NoB forwards messages based on consumer demand, not for achieving failover.
>> You can get failover on the client using standalone brokers, just use failover:()
protocol from client.
>> Master/Slave is true failover.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rallavagu []
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 1:06 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ deployment [ EXTERNAL ]
>> Thanks again Johan. As the failover is configured at the client end how would the
configuration for combined deployment look like?
>> I was thinking on the lines of NOB because the messages are forwarded
>> to other broker(s) thus achieving failover capabilities in case the
>> original broker is failed the duplicate messages are available on
>> second
>> (other) broker(s). Am I off in my assumption?
>> On 12/1/15 9:35 AM, Johan Edstrom wrote:
>>> You want to combine them, the NOB is for communication but JMS is still store
and forward, i.e if a machine dies, you can have multiple paths, what was in the persistence
store of said machine is still "dead" until the machine is revived, that's where the Master
/ Slave(s) come in. They'll jump in and start playing that persistence store.
>>> /je
>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Rallavagu <> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Johan.
>>>> My goal is to achieve high availability (with failover) for producer and
consumer in addition to mitigate a situation of "there is a chance that one broker has producers
but no consumers".
>>>> As per the documentation, it sounds like NOB is an option which can offer
failover and scalability. I was wondering if Master/Slave is the only option to achieve high
availability but it appears to me that NOB can offer the same. Wanted to check this with folks
here in this list if there is anything I am missing.
>>>> On 11/30/15 9:28 PM, Johan Edstrom wrote:
>>>>> What you probably want is a combination of HA and communication.
>>>>> HA I.e master and slave(s) (Depending on storage) gives you uptime.
>>>>> NOB gives you communication paths and as such scalability and for some
value of it versatility.
>>>>> You can also use the two above and combine that with bridges to build
small little scalable clouds that forward like say enterprise email systems.
>>>>> You can also go the completely different route and say that in your Enterprise
you only use central brokers for messages between systems of importance, then you use local
broker networks for message patterns, aggregation etc.
>>>>> There is no one solution here. If you have more specific questions it
might be easier for people here to help as we might have more associations possible?
>>>>> /je
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Rallavagu <>
>>>>>> After spending some time reading, with reference to the following
>>>>>> link,
>>>>>> What I am trying to figure out is if it is possible to achieve a
cluster with fault tolerance deploying with "Networks of brokers" or should I consider "Master/Slave"
in addition to "Networks of brokers". Not sure how the hybrid deploying works. Any comments
would help. Thanks.
>>>>>> On 11/25/15 11:13 AM, Rallavagu wrote:
>>>>>>> Any takers on this? Thanks.
>>>>>>> On 11/24/15 1:37 PM, Rallavagu wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>> What is the recommended deployment architecture for an enterprise?
>>>>>>>> 1. Master/Slave with replicated Level DB
>>>>>>>> (
>>>>>>>> 2. Network of Brokers for scalability
>>>>>>>> 3. Hybrid
>>>>>>>> In case of hybrid, is there a reference document that I could
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>> This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged
and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed.
Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient
or the intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole discretion, monitor, review, retain and/or disclose
the content of all email communications.

View raw message