That's fair enough. Going with then the other option of skipping the node if it's next in the list. That works if the node comes back in the first position but you'll still end up with the same problem if it is in the second position.
Eg initial node order: A B C Topology B A C First three connections would be A B A in that case. Could I suggest maybe enhance it a little so the node that made the initial connection is moved to the end of the list/array in the topology. As such you get a truer round robin. Eg initial static list: A B C Connection made on A. Topology returned: A B C Reorder it moving A to the end. B C A As such first three connections will be: A B C And after continue to be evenly round robin'd This way it's a small reorder, get a balanced number of connections and you don't waste that first connection. WDYT? Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Aug 2017, at 19:02, Justin Bertram <jbert...@redhat.com> wrote: > > As stated previously, I'm not in favor of using the initial connection only > for discovery as I think it's wasteful. > > > Justin > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Michael André Pearce < > michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > >> How much would it be for it to also only use the topology eg the solution >> that just uses the first connection for discovery only, and then topology >> for the actual connections, as so then at least support expanding the >> cluster also but also load balancing better the initial connections. That >> way can support all three options. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 18:24, Justin Bertram <jbert...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> I see your point. I supposed I was focusing on the title of his message >>> (i.e. "use initial connectors instead of received topology") rather than >>> the the details in the description of his problem. >>> >>> FWIW, I plan on implementing a new connector parameter to support >> ignoring >>> the topology because I think it will be useful for this use-case as well >> as >>> some others I've run across. >>> >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Michael André Pearce < >>> michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> From what I read the double connection due to using both lists is the >>>> underlying issue from the original mail. >>>> >>>> " >>>> There is a number of problems and inneficiencies we see on this >> approach. >>>> If we have a cluster with 3 hosts for example, and we declare those on >> the >>>> host list and get 3 connections using the round robin policy, we would >>>> expect to get one connection for each host. But that's not what happens. >>>> The >>>> load balancing policy starts iterating over one list (the initial >> connector >>>> list) and after the first successfull connection it continues iterating >>>> over >>>> another list (the received topology), so most of the time you would get >> two >>>> connections to the same host and none for one of them. >>>> " >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 17:41, Justin Bertram <jbert...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> IMO the way to deal with this is to just add a bit of logic so you >> don't >>>>> get 2 consecutive connections to the same host. Making a connection >> with >>>>> the static connectors, getting the topology, closing the connection, >> and >>>>> then making another connection with the topology is wasteful. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, an option not to use the topology at all would be useful. >>>>> That is, after all, what this thread is really about. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Justin >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Michael André Pearce < >>>>> michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We saw this too when running cluster mode and static discovery before >> we >>>>>> moved to UDP and then finally went to single master cluster due to >> cost >>>> in >>>>>> some support licensing as had to reduce cpu counts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 17:31, Michael André Pearce < >>>>>> michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bit I'm getting at is it uses the discovery connection when on >>>>>> static instead of discovering getting the topology and then using that >>>> to >>>>>> make the connection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is why when using topology and static you see first two >>>> connections >>>>>> to same host as it uses the discovery connection first which for sake >> of >>>>>> discussing host a is first in list, and then the next uses the >> topology >>>> one >>>>>> where host a is first in list as such this is why it makes to >>>> connections >>>>>> to host a before it makes one to host b. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 14:59, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Michael André Pearce >>>>>>>> <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> But what I'm saying is should it be that the discovery should >> happen >>>>>> but then the real connection is made from the returned topology. Like >>>> for >>>>>> UDP instead of hoodwinking on the discovery connection. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not understanding your point here? the connection factory will >>>>>>>> always receive a list of the topology (No matter if UDP or TCP) and >>>>>>>> load balance based on the topology returned. >>>>>>>> There are users using this as a feature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I think is needed here is a simple property to the connection >>>>>>>> factory, like.... useTopololgy, connectOntTopology (or please help >> me >>>>>>>> find a better name). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> then you could connect with: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory factory = new >>>>>>>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory((tcp://NODE1:61616,tcp://NODE2: >>>>>> 61616)?blockOnDurableSend=false&useTopology=false"); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I"m not sure if useTopology would make it clear.. I'm still thinking >>>>>>>> about a better name. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 12:52, Clebert Suconic < >> clebert.suco...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is not a bug. People use this to feed an initial list than the >>>>>> topology >>>>>>>>>> could be much bigger. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:18 AM Michael André Pearce < >>>>>>>>>> michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To me this sounds like a bug, where you get two connections >> because >>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> use two lists. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> as in why doesn't it use the topology list straight away? Fair >>>>>> enough for >>>>>>>>>>> discovery of that topology is should temporarily make a >> connection >>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>>> the static connections, but it should disconnect and reconnect >>>> using >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> topology. I.e. It should just discover the topology using the >>>> static >>>>>>>>>>> discovery list. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Similar to udp discovery it simply discovers then it uses the >>>>>> topology >>>>>>>>>>> returned. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 04:59, Clebert Suconic < >>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree we could add an option. We could use the URI parameters >>>>>> Thought >>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> a beanUtils? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:36 PM Justin Bertram < >>>>>> jbert...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree there should be an option to stick with the "initial" >>>>>> connectors >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than being forced to use the topology. This would be an >>>>>> option >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Netty connector. I think "useTopology" (defaults to true) >>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> good name. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:28 AM, cjaniake < >>>>>> christian.jani...@movile.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there, I have been using the ActiveMQ Artemis JMS interface >>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNDI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not using server discovery, we use static connectors >>>>>> instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the connection factory configuration we supply a list of >>>>>> hosts, that >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> located on two different datacenters, acting as two different >>>>>> clusters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the RoundRobinConnectionLoadBalancingPolicy we expected >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> connect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> every server on the list, but that was not what happened. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debugging the code we realized that, after connecting to the >>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>>> (random) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> host on the list, the Server Locator do not use the initial >>>>>> connectors >>>>>>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, it uses the received topology for the next >> connections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We understand this might be useful in simpler scenarios, but >>>> this >>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working for us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On a sandbox environment we have even tried to remove the >>>> cluster >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration, for the servers to act on a stadalone manner, >> but >>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> though >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the server locator acts the same way, receiving a "topology" >> of >>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> node and restrict the next connections this one host. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a number of problems and inneficiencies we see on >> this >>>>>>>>>>> approach. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we have a cluster with 3 hosts for example, and we declare >>>>>> those on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> host list and get 3 connections using the round robin policy, >> we >>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect to get one connection for each host. But that's not >> what >>>>>>>>>>> happens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> load balancing policy starts iterating over one list (the >>>> initial >>>>>>>>>>>>> connector >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list) and after the first successfull connection it continues >>>>>> iterating >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another list (the received topology), so most of the time you >>>>>> would get >>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connections to the same host and none for one of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a scenario like we have here, with two clusters in >> different >>>>>>>>>>>>> locations, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is even worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We would like to know if we there is an option other than >>>>>> creating a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection factory for each host we want to use, and if we can >>>>>> propose >>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are willing to contribute with the development, if we have >> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding on a possible solution for that problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. >>>>>> nabble.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ActiveMQConnectionFactory-use-initial-connectors-instead-of- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> received-topology-tp4729166.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at >>>> Nabble.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic >>>>>> >>>> >>
