We have backend servers which host ActiveMQ brokers, and we have a web application, running on a Web Server, which is the ActiveMQ client talking to the brokers, it will use failover transport talk to the brokers.
In the near future, we are going to use Web Clustering (or Web Farm), i.e. several Web Servers running at the same time, if one Web Server is down, another web server will replace it transparently. In order to do that, the web application shouldn't have any state information in memory that other Web Servers cannot access, which prevents them from taking over the job. We are thinking maybe we can make all those ConnectionState etc. objects serializable, so they can be persisted and accessed by another Web Server to reconnect to a broker and continue the work. But we are not sure if they are not other issues we didn't seee and if this is a feasible solution. Also we'd like to know ActiveMQ community's thoughts on using ActiveMQ for Web Clustering (Web Farm) case. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Web Clustering support for ActiveMQ On 8/9/06, Ning Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I have a question about using JMS in Web Clustering, which is going to > be our usage case in the near future. Currently for ActiveMQ, the > failover is done on the client side by FailoverTransport, all the states > are kept in the memory. If we make the state objects (ConnectionState, > SessionState etc.) serializable, so that if one Web Server is down, > another Web Server can use these serialized objects and go from there. > will this be a feasible solution? Or there are some betters ways to > support ActiveMQ in Web Clustering case. I don't quite follow what you are trying to do. Could you explain your use case a little more please? -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
