Bruce Snyder wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Erik Drolshammer <erik-...@fjas.no> wrote:
Hi!
Good morning :)
We try to set up two brokers according to [1] to get some redundancy in our
solution. The shared filesystem is based on GFS, but it doesn't seem to work
that well. The master node use a lot of cpu, but the throughput is horrible.
Can anyone point me to some resources describing the setup?
Any debug tips?
The only setup that's needed for the shared filesystem master/slave is
noting the same data directory location for each ActiveMQ instance.
That's it. ActiveMQ takes care of the rest based on the filesystem
locking.
I have this element in activemq.conf on two nodes:
<broker xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core"; useJmx="true"
dataDirectory="${activemq.base}/data">
<persistenceAdapter>
<journaledJDBC dataDirectory="/home/mq"/>
</persistenceAdapter>
Does this seem correct (and adequate)?
It seems this setup use DerbyDB and not Kahastore. Is this the only
option? Are there alternative setups that I might try?
According to the Wikipedia entry for the Google File System (GFS), it
is mainly used for data that is 'extremely rarely overwritten, or
shrunk; files are usually appended to or read.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_File_System
Given this essential fact, I'd say that GFS is probably not a good
candidate for use by ActiveMQ since the ActiveMQ data is in almost a
constant churn of being written and removed as messages flow through
the broker. Could this be the cause of the high CPU usage and poor
throughput?
Perhaps. Btw, I meant Redhat GFS [1], not Google FS. Do you know if
Redhat FS is a good solution?
Or what setup would you recommend?
We currently use ActiveMQ 5.2.0 on RedHat platform as indicated.
[1]http://www.redhat.com/gfs/
--
Best regards,
Erik Drolshammer
