So when I was building my system I had wanted to use M/S, but the documentation
had indicated the old M/S was deprecated in favor of the newer replicated
LevelDB store. There are some stability issues with replicated LevelDB (w/
the code handling the zookeeper connection). Do you use an older
configuration to handle M/S?
Jim
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM Basmajian, Raffi <rbasmaj...@ofiglobal.com>
wrote:
> That's exactly the configuration we're building; M/S pairs with NoB,
> connected via complete graph.
>
> All clients connect using wide-IP "failover:(tcp://eventbus:61616)",
> that's it. We did this for two reasons:
> 1) to avoid messy failover configuration on the client,
> 2) to avoid client-reconfig when topology is scaled out.
>
> Each broker has a special Http service that runs inside broker and queries
> local JMX, responds with following JSON:
>
> {role:master} or {role:slave}
>
> This makes it easy to implement heartbeat logic using hardware
> load-balancer, like F5.
> F5 now pings each broker every 10s to determine which ones are active and
> which are "master"; slaves and inactive nodes are removed from F5 pool.
> When client connects using "failover:(tcp://eventbus:61616)", DNS routes
> to F5 first, then F5 connects client to master broker in nearest
> datacenter; this is done for initial connection only.
> If connection fails, assuming transport connector is configured to update
> client with cluster changes, the client will reconnect on its own; F5 does
> not handle that, which is exactly what we wanted. Control initial connect
> to simplify client config, but leverage ActiveMQ cluster aware clients
> library to manage connection failovers.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Raffi
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rallavagu [mailto:rallav...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:57 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ deployment [ EXTERNAL ]
>
> Now, I am getting a clearer picture about the options. Essentially, NOB
> provides load balancing while Master/Slave offers pure failover. In case I
> go with combination where a Master/Slave cluster is configured with NOB
> with other Master/Slave cluster how would the client failover configuration
> would work?
>
> Will a set of consumers always connect a one of the Master/Slave cluster?
> In this case how would load balance work? Thanks.
>
> On 12/1/15 11:32 AM, Basmajian, Raffi wrote:
> > NoB forwards messages based on consumer demand, not for achieving
> failover.
> > You can get failover on the client using standalone brokers, just use
> failover:() protocol from client.
> > Master/Slave is true failover.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rallavagu [mailto:rallav...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 1:06 PM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: ActiveMQ deployment [ EXTERNAL ]
> >
> > Thanks again Johan. As the failover is configured at the client end how
> would the configuration for combined deployment look like?
> >
> > I was thinking on the lines of NOB because the messages are forwarded
> > to other broker(s) thus achieving failover capabilities in case the
> > original broker is failed the duplicate messages are available on
> > second
> > (other) broker(s). Am I off in my assumption?
> >
> > On 12/1/15 9:35 AM, Johan Edstrom wrote:
> >> You want to combine them, the NOB is for communication but JMS is still
> store and forward, i.e if a machine dies, you can have multiple paths, what
> was in the persistence store of said machine is still "dead" until the
> machine is revived, that's where the Master / Slave(s) come in. They'll
> jump in and start playing that persistence store.
> >>
> >> /je
> >>
> >>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Rallavagu <rallav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Johan.
> >>>
> >>> My goal is to achieve high availability (with failover) for producer
> and consumer in addition to mitigate a situation of "there is a chance that
> one broker has producers but no consumers".
> >>>
> >>> As per the documentation, it sounds like NOB is an option which can
> offer failover and scalability. I was wondering if Master/Slave is the only
> option to achieve high availability but it appears to me that NOB can offer
> the same. Wanted to check this with folks here in this list if there is
> anything I am missing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/30/15 9:28 PM, Johan Edstrom wrote:
> >>>> What you probably want is a combination of HA and communication.
> >>>>
> >>>> HA I.e master and slave(s) (Depending on storage) gives you uptime.
> >>>> NOB gives you communication paths and as such scalability and for
> some value of it versatility.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can also use the two above and combine that with bridges to build
> small little scalable clouds that forward like say enterprise email systems.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can also go the completely different route and say that in your
> Enterprise you only use central brokers for messages between systems of
> importance, then you use local broker networks for message patterns,
> aggregation etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no one solution here. If you have more specific questions it
> might be easier for people here to help as we might have more associations
> possible?
> >>>>
> >>>> /je
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Rallavagu <rallav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After spending some time reading, with reference to the following
> >>>>> link,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/clustering.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I am trying to figure out is if it is possible to achieve a
> cluster with fault tolerance deploying with "Networks of brokers" or should
> I consider "Master/Slave" in addition to "Networks of brokers". Not sure
> how the hybrid deploying works. Any comments would help. Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/25/15 11:13 AM, Rallavagu wrote:
> >>>>>> Any takers on this? Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/24/15 1:37 PM, Rallavagu wrote:
> >>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is the recommended deployment architecture for an enterprise?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Master/Slave with replicated Level DB
> >>>>>>> (http://activemq.apache.org/replicated-leveldb-store.html)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. Network of Brokers for scalability
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3. Hybrid
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In case of hybrid, is there a reference document that I could use?
> >>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> > This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary,
> privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the
> person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
> disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended
> recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return
> e-mail and delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole discretion,
> monitor, review, retain and/or disclose the content of all email
> communications.
> >
>
