gabriel kastenbaum wrote:
Hi,
ktrue wrote:
3. The previous developers on the project used a network of brokers
topology and had a broker in
each of the clients as well. However, when the client's JMS
connection factory used a failover:(vm://client)
transport for the brokerURL, it never actually worked. When the
server went offline and came back online
it would never reconnect. Given my current understanding
(admittedly
shallow), I don't see the need/benefit
of embedding brokers in the client except that (in relation to
question 2), there are configuration options for
persistence of messages. Is there something I'm missing.
Adrian Co a écrit :
For me, one of the key use of embedding brokers in the client, is
that clients can continue processing stuff even when the remote
broker is down. AFAIK, using the failover protocol, will block the
sending of a message until the client is able reconnect to the
broker. If you use an embedded broker, messages will be persisted
automatically, and be sent when the remote broker comes online again,
and the actual producer need not worry about it. I don't think theres
not much use for a failover:vm://client as using an embedded broker
assumes that if a broker goes down, the client in essence is also down.
I am also very interested by that type of solution.
This is the architecture one we are testing now (ActiveMQ version: 4.0.2
or 4.1). But as far I understood how things work, and within my small
experience of repeatedly unsuccessfull tries, I never manage to see a
disconnected broker reconnecting automatically to other ActiveMQ brokers
in a network of brokers, and then sending messages.
cf. also http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-895. Related?
Could be if you are connecting to other JMS brokers aside from AMQ, but
if you are networking ActiveMQ brokers only, I don't think so.
Is it true?
If not, what is the configuration to use to have a network of brokers
with automatic reconnection of brokers?
Just set the network connectors to failover="true" or
"failover://remotehost:61616". I haven't grokked if there is any diff
between the two, but I think they're just the same. :)
Thanks by advance!
