activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>
Subject RE: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system
Date Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:38:04 GMT
No.
On Apr 1, 2016 11:13 AM, "Natarajan, Rajeswari" <rajeswari.natarajan@sap.com>
wrote:

> KahaDB has HA with ZooKeeper ?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tbain98@gmail.com [mailto:tbain98@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bain
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:01 AM
> To: ActiveMQ Users <users@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system
>
> There used to be a share-nothing master-slave configuration but it was
> buggy and never worked right and has since been removed.  Replicated
> LevelDB is the only option that doesn't have a singleton resource, though
> you could make the argument that the Zookeeper cluster is a singleton
> resource spread over multiple hosts, or that JDBC to a clustered Oracle
> instance is no more of a singleton resource than the Zookeeper cluster.
>
> As for whether replicated LevelDB is production ready, it's really a
> question of how willing you are to experience bugs in production (and then
> be an active part of the investigation).  Replicated LevelDB is far less
> buggy than it was a few versions back, but they haven't all been shaken out
> yet, and this mailing list lacks an active LevelDB expert and many LevelDB
> questions go unanswered, so you'll need to be able to figure out how to get
> it working mostly on your own (using the wiki and the mailing list
> archives), and if you hit a bug you may need to investigate it yourself.
>
> None of this is insurmountable, it's just a question of your personality,
> your willingness to invest time into it, and your willingness to possibly
> run into bugs.  If you're able to live with those negatives and you'd like
> to help make LevelDB better for the community, go for it.  If you want
> something that's as stable as possible and will require the least possible
> amount of effort from you, go with KahaDB.
> On Apr 1, 2016 5:37 AM, "James A. Robinson" <jimr@highwire.org> wrote:
>
> > Some people are using it. I wanted to, but decided I wasn't comfortable
> > relying on it.
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 19:15 Natarajan, Rajeswari <
> > rajeswari.natarajan@sap.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is  replicated level DB store production ready now.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James A. Robinson [mailto:jimr@highwire.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:19 PM
> > > To: users@activemq.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any other choice.  I initially tried to use the
> > replicated
> > > leveldb system but ran into too many stability issues.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:17 PM Natarajan, Rajeswari <
> > > rajeswari.natarajan@sap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Would like to know if ActiveMQ supports HA with message replication
> > > > without the shared DB or shared file system
> > > >
> > > > I see that there is  a  replicated level DB store which requires a
> zoo
> > > > keeper.  Is there any other mechanism available other than these
> > options
> > > > where messages are getting replicated to the standby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Rajeswari
> > > >
> > > > http://activemq.apache.org/replicated-leveldb-store.html
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message