From users-return-51076-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@activemq.apache.org Thu Mar 14 18:06:23 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B1C0180630 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 19:06:22 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 63257 invoked by uid 500); 14 Mar 2019 18:06:21 -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 63246 invoked by uid 99); 14 Mar 2019 18:06:20 -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; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:06:20 +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 444A6183061 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:06:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.945 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.945 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.66] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rtwRpRuh0OE9 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:06:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from n4.nabble.com (n4.nabble.com [199.38.86.66]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 809A660DF7 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from n4.nabble.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n4.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C7562D7683 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:06:17 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:06:17 -0500 (CDT) From: artemisn00b To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <1552586777095-0.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1552517967207-0.post@n4.nabble.com> <23C8A0768C50A6D9.c58784fd-2b29-45e4-964b-08ff5b69ff07@mail.outlook.com> <1552585079804-0.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Federation vs cluster MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmm..so I have a question. Would you recommend me using a backup at all for the scenario below - I have 3 VMs as Artemis servers and I want all messages to be delivered to all consumers on the servers. I'm currently using a cluster (ip1,ip2,ip3) and I tear-down and create a new connection on a broker failure. So, it connects to a server that is up and running. It seems to be working fine, except I don't think it's a robust solution. Can you suggest a better implementation for the above scenario? Would you say I should use a backup? I'm trying without one, as it needs extra memory and in case the master fails, and the connection failed over to a slave, and that slave also fails, I anyway have to tear down that connection and create a new one. Thanks for all the help. Reallllyyyy appreciate it! :) -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html