Thanks. One broker in the failover sounds promising; so if we kill the broker, the clients & server will repeatedly try to connect to each broker in the list - and if there's only one, they'll just "wait" until it reappears ?
Perhaps a silly question, but do they ever give up ? Or is this where some groovy back-off algorithm kicks in ? > -----Original Message----- > From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 October 2006 15:50 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Failover Advice > > :) > > So yes the URL you use at the end sounds line to me. Run 2 > brokers if you like, otherwise just use failver: on the one > broker (so that bad/hung TCP connections get recreated). > > On 10/3/06, Charles Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm looking for some advice, please, on possible failover > approaches. > > > > We have a single standalone ActiveMQ Broker, and both application > > clients and an application servers connective to the broker via tcp. > > The messages are non-persistent, and we have persitence > turned off on > > the ActiveMQ Broker. > > > > The application server actually resides on the same server as the > > ActiveMQ server; the clients are coming in over a VPN connection. > > > > We have two internet lines coming in - and sometimes we > need to swap > > lines, due to routing problems. Our IT chaps tinker away with some > > VPN/router settings, and hey presto, the TCP traffic is > rerouted over > > the other line. > > > > Sometimes, though not always, it seems this causes the TCP > Connections > > to ActiveMQ to hang (sometimes they go to TCP_WAIT states). > > > > Now, obviously I'd rather the connections didn't go belly up - but > > anecodotally (i.e. through observation, not through proof) they do > > occasionally do this. > > > > How can I set up a fail over scenario here ? Our broker, > and all the > > clietns and servers are configured using URLs; the Broker currently > > listens on > > > > tcp://localhost:61616 > > > > The application server connections to the same url > > (tcp://localhost:61616) > > The clients connect using a dns-resolved name, > > (tcp://examplemachine.host.com:61616) > > > > I'm actually not bothered if existing messages get lost - > what I don't > > want to do is restart my application server, because we have some > > lengthy initialisation logic which can take up to half an hour. > > > > Would this work (yes, I know I should just try it - but SHOULD this > > work) : > > > > configure two separate ActiveMQ Brokers on the same machine > > > > Broker 1 tcp://localhost:61616 > > Broker 2 tcp://localhost:61700 > > > > Configure the clients/application server to use a failover URL : > > > failover://(tcp://examplemachine.host.com:61616,tcp://examplemachine.h > > os > > t.com:61616)?randomize=false > > > > Would that make any sense ? > > > > We're using a snapshopt of ActiveMQ 4.0 from May. > > > > Excuse the hurried email that probably doesn't make a great deal of > > sense; disgruntled clients are applying pressure... > > > > Cheers, > > > > Charles. > > > > > -- > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ >
