Thanks Torsten for reply and clarifications! Obviously I didn't understand well the difference between master/slave and network of brokers.
I think performance constraints are not too high, having HA is more important - message received must be consumed if at least one broker & consumer is running. Will check requirements and get back. Regards, Stevo. On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Torsten Mielke <[email protected]> wrote: >> Can failover protocol be used for network connectors? > > Yes, please see > http://tmielke.blogspot.com/2011/09/activemq-network-bridge-to-masterslave.html > >> Can destinations and >> messages be shared for HA across the geo-redundant nodes? > Using a network connector you do not share messages between brokers but you > allow messages to travel between brokers. > I.e. when a msg travels to a different broker it is deleted on the local > broker. Msgs only travel to remote brokers within a network of brokers, when > there are consumers registered on the remote broker. > So this will not serve as a master/slave solution. > > Master / Slave is typically done on a shared resource (file system or > database). This will be difficult to setup between brokers on different geo > locations. > Pure master slave replicates everything but do you really want this over a > WAN connection? > > Typically users set up master/slave on nodes within one geo location and > connect geo location using a network connector. > > > Torsten Mielke > [email protected] > [email protected] > > > On Sep 28, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Stevo Slavić wrote: > >> Hello ActiveMQ users, >> >> Imagine 4 nodes, 2 per location, on each node on same location/LAN a >> shared filesystem (separate node) used by two local brokers in shared >> filesystem master slave (SFSMS) configuration. Can destinations and >> messages be shared for HA across the geo-redundant nodes? >> >> Can failover protocol be used for network connectors? Then AMQ brokers >> on one location could connect to brokers on other location via >> failover protocol. Compared to transport connector failover handling, >> if AMQ brokers from one location can not connect to neither of >> failover AMQ brokers on other location (e.g. if other location is down >> completely, neither of the SFSMS nodes are responding), they should >> continue to operate as if nothing happened (slave not responding, >> down). When other location is brought back up, before putting it >> online one will have to sync the message storage manually, just like >> in pure master slave. For each location, other location would be a >> slave, in a pure master slave configuration. >> >> Does this make sense? Is it feasible with AMQ 5.5.0? >> >> Regards, >> Stevo. > > > > > >
