activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <>
Subject Re: Artemis question on JMS clustered topic and high availability
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:46:23 GMT
You are using AWS. Do you have the storage disk? or is it transient?

What I have been suggesting to cloud user is to just monitor their
system, and have the system restarting itself in case of a failure.
That is the best scenario you can get since the infra-structure would
give you the needed HA.

If you don't, you will need to setup a backup/live pair for each system.

The only difference is that you can do that with just 2 boxes...

Box1: LiveA and BackupB
Box2: LiveB and BackupA

That's a possible example / solution.

We have a colocated topology that was developed for wildfly or
embedded systems, but I would recommend you keeping it as simple as
possible... either have the infra-structure restarting itself if you
have the storage... or have a backup pair like I'm suggesting here.

I feel like I missed answering something here.. let me know if I am...

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Bruce Ritchie <> wrote:
> Your reply is much appreciated. So crossing master/slave is only possible
> in a colocated environment? If so I think that's doable in my situation.
> "what you are looking is having a copy of the topic subscription on every
> node, making it a single cluster among different nodes,"
> Is there an example of this I can work from? I previously was working from
> the example @
> Thanks!
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Clebert Suconic <
>> wrote:
>> when you have a topic subscription in cluster.. the message will be
>> copied to every subscription on the cluster connection (or network of
>> brokers)...
>> When you have the same subscription among different nodes.. (that
>> is... the same core-queue name on more than one node), then
>> load-balancing will have a play...
>> what you are looking is having a copy of the topic subscription on
>> every node, making it a single cluster among different nodes, and
>> that's not what you have here. You would need a backup to save the
>> acks between two servers.
>> you can have multiple master/slaves on your environment, and even
>> cross them on a colocated environment, having a phisical server with 2
>> live nodes in case of failures.
>> Don't know if that helps?
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Bruce Ritchie <>
>> wrote:
>> > I've been investigating switching from a single activemq server to a
>> > cluster of artemis servers on aws and I have a question on clustered jms
>> > topics and high availability.
>> >
>> > Firstly, I like the idea that the producers/consumers can connect to any
>> > node in the cluster and fail over (client side) to a different node if a
>> > node goes down without loosing any messages with the understanding that
>> the
>> > producers may have to retry submissions.
>> >
>> > In my usage scenario I do not have any queues - just two jms topics.
>> > Multiple producers, multiple consumers. What I've been trying to figure
>> out
>> > is if I can away with not having a <ha-policy>. The clustered topic
>> example
>> > seems to indicate that with a message-load-balancing set to STRICT that
>> > it'll copy messages to other nodes in the cluster if a corresponding
>> topic
>> > already exists there. My understanding from reading the docs is that
>> this a
>> > true copy (potentially async I assume) vs something like a read-through
>> > from one node to another when the message doesn't exist on the local
>> node.
>> > Is that correct?
>> >
>> > If the above is correct and the fact that I don't have a requirement to
>> be
>> > able to recover messages after a full cluster restart is there any reason
>> > to have a ha-policy set? The only reason I can think of is to sync
>> messages
>> > in the topic between shutdown and restart of a node in the cluster prior
>> to
>> > clients reconnecting to that node so that the client(s) may not miss
>> > messages (potential dup are ok in my use case). That's pretty important
>> but
>> > I'm not sure I have can both the clustered jms topics in a symmetrical
>> > cluster and have a ha-policy (ala [master0/slave1] <-->
>> [master1/slave0]).
>> > Is that possible?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic

Clebert Suconic

View raw message