Gary, How does that work when a duplex connection is used... Are the dynamicallyIncludedDestinations then applied in both directions?
thx, Erwin -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> Verzonden: donderdag 20 mei 2021 22:37 Aan: users@activemq.apache.org Onderwerp: Re: question on ActiveMQ advisory messages for large cluster EXTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. EXPÉDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe à moins qu’ils ne proviennent d’un expéditeur fiable, ou que vous ayez l'assurance que le contenu provient d'une source sûre. peek at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/activemq/blob/main/activemq-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/network/NetworkBridgeConfiguration.java*L308__;Iw!!AaIhyw!4GxWfldtQ48Hcn_7N7mRf9AyQkqyOCji2_x1V9Oep4Fw19149DxMJFPGi7dE0f4n$ when dynamicallyIncludedDestinations are configured, the set of advisories that are subscribed to, will be restricted to just those. On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 20:42, Dondorp, Erwin <erwin.dond...@cgi.com> wrote: > > Matt, > > > Yep, sounds like the firewall constraint is going to nix the static network. > Very nice to get a confirmation on that, it takes away the remaining doubt. > > > it sounds like your options are to look at implementing a series of > > bridges > That is exactly what we already started doing, and indeed with wildcards. > But I'll now take a second look at Camel. > > thx!!! > Erwin > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > Verzonden: donderdag 20 mei 2021 19:29 > Aan: users@activemq.apache.org > Onderwerp: Re: question on ActiveMQ advisory messages for large > cluster > > > EXTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you > trust the sender and know the content is safe. > EXPÉDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce > jointe à moins qu’ils ne proviennent d’un expéditeur fiable, ou que vous ayez > l'assurance que le contenu provient d'une source sûre. > > Yep, sounds like the firewall constraint is going to nix the static network. > > If you must create connections in one-direction, it sounds like your options > are to look at implementing a series of bridges. Check out Camel. ActiveMQ > supports consuming from multiple queues and using wildcards, and composite > destinations[1]. This gets you the dynamic consumer behavior without having > to use advisories. ie.. consume from uri=“queue:ORDER <queue://ORDER>.>" > would match all queues that start with “ORDER." > > You can do dynamic deploy and have process control with Camel, so that is a > bonus for when endpoints turn-up or down and if you need to recycle the > connections for what ever reason. > > [1] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://activemq.apache.org/composite-dest > inations__;!!AaIhyw!9XkMezMkgcgKgeaF907ZPiLX-3tOHZOeA7hV4yS_gpMkfT6r_Q > F63b91-JrIaqE-$ > > -Matt > > > On May 20, 2021, at 11:42 AM, Dondorp, Erwin <erwin.dond...@cgi.com> wrote: > > > > Matt, > > > >> Have you considered a purely static network configuration? > > Due to firewall constraints, we are forced to use "duplex" routing. > > Static routing only seems to work one-way, thus it does not look useable to > > me. > > > > e. > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> > > Verzonden: donderdag 20 mei 2021 18:31 > > Aan: users@activemq.apache.org > > Onderwerp: Re: question on ActiveMQ advisory messages for large > > cluster > > > > > > EXTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless > > you trust the sender and know the content is safe. > > EXPÉDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce > > jointe à moins qu’ils ne proviennent d’un expéditeur fiable, ou que vous > > ayez l'assurance que le contenu provient d'une source sûre. > > > > Hi Erwin- > > > > Have you considered a purely static network configuration? > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > >> On May 20, 2021, at 11:12 AM, Dondorp, Erwin <erwin.dond...@cgi.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello! > >> > >> We are using ActiveMQ in a star-network of a few hundred remote brokers on > >> small computers with a more beefy central broker(set). > >> Functionally, this works fine. > >> Unfortunately, the network is not always stable (but this is exactly why > >> we use a messaging solution). > >> On network problems that affect most-or-all remote brokers, upon > >> reconnection, a very large amount of advisory messages are sent between > >> the nodes. > >> The amount of messages seems to be quadratic with the number of brokers. > >> And the number of advisory message types is high because we use unique > >> destinations per remote broker, so the amount is actually cubic. > >> We see millions of these messages on such occasions. > >> > >> Obviously, we are trying to reduce this, and looked at > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://activemq.apache.org/advisory-message__;!!AaIhyw!9Vw1LVPo-hNr3HyIBXw_vR7Y6Rl9ZuFTKWrblXLbRW-s0o8q8Vah2B9ZtAt9C2Qr$ > >> and > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers__;!!AaIhyw!9Vw1LVPo-hNr3HyIBXw_vR7Y6Rl9ZuFTKWrblXLbRW-s0o8q8Vah2B9ZtMYftVeh$ > >> . > >> But no obvious solution was in sight. > >> > >> The question: > >> Most of the advisory messages are useless; they are about destinations > >> that a broker does not have any consumers or producers for, but still > >> these are subscribed to. > >> Is there a way to reduce the subscriptions on advisory topics to only the > >> interesting ones? > >> > >> thx, > >> Erwin > > >
