Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3EAC200BFB for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:08:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id D2A4D160B4E; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 29171160B3B for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:08:10 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 51157 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2017 17:08:09 -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 51145 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jan 2017 17:08:08 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:08:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 8278718049D for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:08:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.879 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.879 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kC_wy5W46oqC for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com (mail-lf0-f52.google.com [209.85.215.52]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id EF26860D9B for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f52.google.com with SMTP id v186so86878884lfa.1 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:08:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=s6YD3xToldlW4XsbuPvIMJ8f3g5o5LXhytNEIz8kIMI=; b=fqq3Gnp65Vo4RVkXXLzJiR1rCTj2zYTB1gGsvkMxKCiKTsAdNCAilFokT9kxyazc2J d5mohWVkVkVOrElJot0qTz3vrarRfZ2bdLUDrcSzguhuISzMXE8jjdmDOrqFGt5mzW3c 2ruFGScdUk/MlwmhZP+yZlv/cSgUfdK/ltRxJxyjirzV4woaC7faJuSjvnNvtdwSVoVf j7cx3xDI1uye7bh1qpxz5L56b5F5wXyT9AgNM49Vud8zRbsl7+ddLgxYBt0SOyxSrzE6 bokygc4RCFOV1H9YkIerIPHNskavCt8k+Q9ddcH6c5UtPWstLWD4c5meXITcaU1dnkO7 hwAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=s6YD3xToldlW4XsbuPvIMJ8f3g5o5LXhytNEIz8kIMI=; b=PmQjQp3/pdvz/rg37qaGkjZuRnuSsncJHbcErfv3cwrD0MdKluI3P0USFB8q47mlwB jn1NyTmLD54M6mi9yk/4ML+tL/z6mBvQ5JL5CEv7zK9sYuy1gZBh7aaB3Ah6EtV5IDU0 0net87PaoMNJMCYBPYV2u8f6+VQanxSLgu0UmKaXTo1SRmAsC7cGhu3pqGA5/3xPaX/2 r46AWibfAYRaRh4M5IVSP0uOe0zqeSbPBXaCp9IqHs6eZ7JBM2Xx2EvhKW6Q8ibEVcZS DGuKwo4HTRW32g+quG8+iEFYLaRiTP/Btx7RoHDhLvyZq7QjgqPCSfAW06rg4ZXA/yo9 VQFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIFmSzhYKWUhXXRtO6lzXUoVbbUhMmhqpxnEQXvJrJ5b6HumIn+CH2VNB0EJuMgBqdKXv6NsFXoHIqtyA== X-Received: by 10.46.21.25 with SMTP id s25mr3466830ljd.54.1484154478607; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:07:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.81.100 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:07:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bruce Ritchie Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:07:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Artemis question on JMS clustered topic and high availability To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1cc8e07d43480545d4a481 archived-at: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:08:11 -0000 --94eb2c1cc8e07d43480545d4a481 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 @ https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/1.x/examples/features/clustered/clustered-topic 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 . 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 > --94eb2c1cc8e07d43480545d4a481--