Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tbain98@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPd04b4eQdHdp1dJDD-rouBQrk4E3LD3i+pan=xFi_HPunFFtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9f2ad56bd5bb45a6853ed6b878632a8d@USPHLE13US08.global.corp.sap>
	<CAPd04b59VoUuhcuAfAhzbE6jyt6=PfN=-Torc7KM_HYL8EdXZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<e6edb29d3eee4534a14ab26fcdcffbdf@USPHLE13US08.global.corp.sap>
	<CAPd04b4eQdHdp1dJDD-rouBQrk4E3LD3i+pan=xFi_HPunFFtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 08:01:13 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CAPVVMa-WXicTEHRSEQmZOcvP4XAHD9aze-K1e+rZE1sju3LNWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system
From: Tim Bain <tbain@alumni.duke.edu>
To: ActiveMQ Users <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed8e2d7b2e8052f6ccfdb

--001a113ed8e2d7b2e8052f6ccfdb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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
> > >
> >
>

--001a113ed8e2d7b2e8052f6ccfdb--