> We are not running multiple brokers on the same JVM but a single instance per VM, so each one has a dedicated JVM and VM
Based on your previous message I was under the impression you were using the "colocated" feature. *If* you're using this then you definitely are running multiple brokers in the same JVM because that's precisely what that feature does. It runs a primary and a backup broker in the *same JVM*. If you aren't using a "colocated" configuration then I'm not sure what the original question is about. Can you clarify? Justin On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:07 AM Roy Cohen <roy_co...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Justin > > Thank you for your input. > > Sorry, should have been clearer on our setup - We are not running multiple > brokers on the same JVM but a single instance per VM, so each one has a > dedicated JVM and VM > > Thanks > Roy > > > > On 27 Mar 2023, at 16:59, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I'm not entirely sure if the configuration you want is possible. You > might > > try using the "group-name" element in the "master" or "slave" element of > > "colocated." Only servers with the same group-name will pair together. > > > > Aside from that I would actually recommend against using colocated > brokers. > > The original use-case for this functionality was very early cloud > > infrastructure where durable, attached storage was not readily available. > > However, since then most (if not all) cloud environments support durable > > storage separate from the broker so that if the broker goes down a new, > > identical broker can be spun-up relatively quickly and attached to the > same > > storage. This provides functional high availability without the need for > > any idle backups or replication of any kind which functionally nullifies > > this feature. > > > > Additionally, it turns out that (surprise!) configuring & running > multiple > > brokers in the same JVM is difficult and error-prone not to mention the > > complication of dynamically coordinating the acquisition of backups in a > > running cluster and protecting against split-brain. > > > > > > Justin > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 7:37 AM Roy Cohen <roy_co...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone > >> > >> We have a setup of three Artemis brokers (very old version don’t ask :)) > >> > >> We would like to configure the co located backups such that the backups > >> are sent in this order: > >> > >> Broker01 -> Broker02 > >> Broker02 -> Broker03 > >> Broker03 -> Broker01 > >> > >> > >> I was reading on co located backups here: > >> > https://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/1.0.0/ha.html > >> however not sure I fully understand how to configure the xml section to > >> achieve that. > >> > >> Shall I add excludes in each broker, i.e. > >> > >> <colocated> > >> <excludes> > >> <connector-ref>...</connector-ref> > >> </excludes> > >> > >> Any help would be appreciated. > >> > >> Many thanks in advance ! > >> > >> > >> > >
