activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Bain <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ 5 Multi-Datacenter Camel Routes
Date Sun, 22 Sep 2019 05:39:02 GMT

If I understand you correctly, you're using Camel to clone the message so
you get one per data center, and then using Camel to move the message from
the data center at which it was produced to the other one. And you're doing
this so that you can have all messages reach consumers in both data
centers, though I'm a little confused about why you're routing messages
sent to topics (with pub/sub semantics, supporting multiple consumers) to a
single local queue in each data center (which would allow only one consumer
per data center to process the message). Did I get that right?

If so, it does seem like a network of brokers would handle this natively
without all the Camel routes. You'd ensure that messages and subscriptions
for the topic in question is forwarded across the network bridge, and all
consumers in either data center would get delivered a copy of the message.
What is it that you're accomplishing with the Camel routes that would not
be accomplished with this setup?


On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:11 AM William Culler <>

> We have the following configuration.
> 3 brokers in Datacenter A in a master/slave configuration using a shared
> file system. 3 brokers in Datacenter B in a master/slave configuration
> using a shared file system.
> There are producers sending messages to topics at Datacenter A. There are
> Camel routes routing those messages from the topics to separate local
> queues, 1 for local processing and 1 for remote processing, where another
> set of Camel routes route the messages from the local remote queue to
> remote queues at Datacenter B.
> The same configuration exists at Datacenter B where the routing for the
> remote works in the opposite direction to Datacenter A.
> This configuration is intended to give us an active/active multi-datacenter
> cluster.
> Even though this configuration seems to work, we are wondering if this
> would be the recommended way to do this. I am thinking in terms of using
> "network of brokers", but reading the documentation, it doesn't seem like
> that would accomplish what we are accomplishing with the Camel routes.
> We do have problems from time to time, but we do not know for sure if the
> Camel routes are the cause.
> Any insight would be appreciated.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message