Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1501684086948-4729166.post@n4.nabble.com> <CAF+kE=RYGnUsGeatmFQaEnadDHeT6Qi4-GyyayfQnhJ7g_-dYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKF+bsrrF68GCVDh9C8yF3+2iu40EwiQ1CAO9c+gz9tjaJDBOQ@mail.gmail.com> <1E5E2643-263C-431D-944B-FDA6519F6C00@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <1E5E2643-263C-431D-944B-FDA6519F6C00@me.com>
From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:52:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKF+bsqo=u2zpsXW37+HoBfSRUALvwpqZgwsZwFmizKSUS81aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ActiveMQConnectionFactory: use initial connectors instead of
 received topology
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114916c8e6068e0555d804a4"
archived-at: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:52:53 -0000

--001a114916c8e6068e0555d804a4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It is not a bug. People use this to feed an initial list than the topology
could be much bigger.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:18 AM Michael Andr=C3=A9 Pearce <
michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:

> To me this sounds like a bug, where you get two connections because you
> use two lists.
>
> as in why doesn't it use the topology list straight away? Fair enough for
> discovery of that topology is should temporarily make a connection using
> the static connections, but it should disconnect and reconnect using the
> topology. I.e. It should just discover the topology using the static
> discovery list.
>
> Similar to udp discovery it simply discovers then it uses the topology
> returned.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 3 Aug 2017, at 04:59, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree we could add an option. We could use the URI parameters Thought
> as
> > a beanUtils?
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:36 PM Justin Bertram <jbertram@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree there should be an option to stick with the "initial" connecto=
rs
> >> rather than being forced to use the topology.  This would be an option
> on
> >> the Netty connector.  I think "useTopology" (defaults to true) would b=
e
> a
> >> good name.
> >>
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:28 AM, cjaniake <christian.janiake@movile.com=
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi there, I have been using the ActiveMQ Artemis JMS interface withou=
t
> >>> JNDI.
> >>> We are not using server discovery, we use static connectors instead.
> >>> In the connection factory configuration we supply a list of hosts, th=
at
> >> are
> >>> located on two different datacenters, acting as two different cluster=
s.
> >>> Using the RoundRobinConnectionLoadBalancingPolicy we expected to
> connect
> >>> to
> >>> every server on the list, but that was not what happened.
> >>> Debugging the code we realized that, after connecting to the first
> >> (random)
> >>> host on the list, the Server Locator do not use the initial connector=
s
> >> list
> >>> anymore, it uses the received topology for the next connections.
> >>> We understand this might be useful in simpler scenarios, but this is
> not
> >>> working for us.
> >>> On a sandbox environment we have even tried to remove the cluster
> >>> connection
> >>> configuration, for the servers to act on a stadalone manner, but even
> >>> though
> >>> the server locator acts the same way, receiving a "topology" of only
> one
> >>> node and restrict the next connections this one host.
> >>>
> >>> There is a number of problems and inneficiencies we see on this
> approach.
> >>> If we have a cluster with 3 hosts for example, and we declare those o=
n
> >> the
> >>> host list and get 3 connections using the round robin policy, we woul=
d
> >>> expect to get one connection for each host. But that's not what
> happens.
> >>> The
> >>> load balancing policy starts iterating over one list (the initial
> >> connector
> >>> list) and after the first successfull connection it continues iterati=
ng
> >>> over
> >>> another list (the received topology), so most of the time you would g=
et
> >> two
> >>> connections to the same host and none for one of them.
> >>>
> >>> In a scenario like we have here, with two clusters in different
> >> locations,
> >>> it is even worse.
> >>> We would like to know if we there is an option other than creating a
> >>> connection factory for each host we want to use, and if we can propos=
e
> an
> >>> improvement.
> >>> We are willing to contribute with the development, if we have an
> >>> understanding on a possible solution for that problem.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/
> >>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory-use-initial-connectors-instead-of-
> >>> received-topology-tp4729166.html
> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
--=20
Clebert Suconic

--001a114916c8e6068e0555d804a4--