I think what I’m trying to say is that - OpenWire is a two way communication protocol,
it benefits in producing from you not closing the connection (you are just causing broker connection management churn) and some of the features really requires that a connection isn’t man in the middle managed. - Putting a loadbalancer and shared IP is a bad idea. If it was a more http like protocol, sure, you’ll still be creating connection churn unless it is a “gateway” protocol that keeps its own connection open to the broker. The brokers also look at connection / consumption / production speed, another argument against load balancing externally. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Nguyên Ngô <locnguyen1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your explanation. > As I understand, Openwire required that both of endpoints must have direct > connection ( at least one) for communication. However, we can connect via > the load balancing which have elastic IP ( at least one connect each message > exchange). I try to search but seem that nothing happen, we must construct > the endpoint relationship first. > So the problems is here: Can we mapping the address of ActiveMQ brokers to > the load balancing IP which will forward all messages to them? It 's not > accepted. Seem that we cannot use the external load balancing solution to > resolve the activeMQ load balancing. > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Configure-load-balancing-activemq-servers-which-have-only-one-static-load-balancing-IP-tp4693831p4693903.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
