I'm not sure where I may have indicated that either one of those things isn't supported.
In any case, you can do either. Justin On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 1:07 PM Roy Cohen <roy_co...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Just to be clear: When you say “isn’t supported” do you mean a third > broker or co located backups when running each broker on its own VM ? > > > On 27 Mar 2023, at 19:04, Roy Cohen <roy_co...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Will do Justin and many thanks for all the additional details which I > will certainly bring forward internally, much appreciated > > > > On 27 Mar 2023, at 18:58, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I recently added a new section to the clustering documentation regarding > > things to keep in mind regarding performance [1]. > > > > Also, it's worth noting that often the bottleneck in messaging is not the > > broker itself but rather the consumer(s). It might be worth ensuring that > > the bottleneck really is the broker. As noted in the new documentation > [1], > > adding brokers to a cluster can actually *reduce* throughput in certain > > circumstances. > > > > Let me know if using group-name works for you. > > > > > > Justin > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/main/docs/user-manual/en/clusters.md#performance-considerations > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:44 PM Roy Cohen <roy_co...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I haven’t tried he group-name yet. > >> > >> With regards to the third broker: The architects believe it’ll improve > >> performance given the amount of messages the brokers need to process (in > >> other words “throw more resources at it…”) > >> > >> > >>> On 27 Mar 2023, at 18:28, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> What would you suggest is to do ? > >>> > >>> Did you try my previous suggestion already (i.e. using the "group-name" > >>> element in the "master" or "slave" element of "colocated")? > >>> > >>> Aside from that, do you know why you were asked to add another broker? > >>> Depending on the reason it may not be a good solution. > >>> > >>> > >>> Justin > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:07 PM Roy Cohen <roy_co...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Justin > >>>> > >>>> It is a good question I honestly don’t have the answer for. I > inherited > >>>> this configuration and was asked to add a third broker and to ensure > >> the co > >>>> located backups are being done in such a way that each broker points > on > >>>> another. Perhaps those who asked for it don’t fully understand Artemis > >> ! :) > >>>> > >>>> That said, those co located backup on the existing setup with two > >> brokers > >>>> do work as we have been enabled to recover lost messages in the past. > So > >>>> even not optimal, technically it does work ? > >>>> > >>>> I can only imagine that those who initially designed it about 5 years > >> ago > >>>> did not use a shared storage to avoid latency. > >>>> > >>>> What would you suggest is to do ? > >>>> > >>>> On 27 Mar 2023, at 18:00, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Your screenshot didn't come through the list. > >>>> > >>>> In any case, I'm pretty confused at this point. You're clearly using a > >>>> colocated configuration that will request a backup from another broker > >> in > >>>> the cluster, but you say you're not running multiple brokers in the > same > >>>> JVM. If you aren't running multiple brokers in the same JVM then what > >> are > >>>> you using the colocated configuration for? The whole point of the > >> colocated > >>>> configuration is to run multiple brokers in the same JVM (i.e. a > primary > >>>> broker and also a backup broker for another primary in the cluster). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Justin > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:42 AM Roy Cohen <roy_co...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I don’t believe we are. > >>>>> > >>>>> So assume three Virtual Machines on Azure. > >>>>> > >>>>> Each VM runs one Artemis broker > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> All of their ha policy section on all three brokers look like that: > >>>>> > >>>>> <ha-policy> > >>>>> <replication> > >>>>> <colocated> > >>>>> <max-backups>1</max-backups> > >>>>> <request-backup>true</request-backup> > >>>>> > >>>>> <backup-request-retry-interval>1000</backup-request-retry-interval> > >>>>> <excludes> > >>>>> <connector-ref>my-connector</connector-ref> > >>>>> <connector-ref>thishostname.mydomain</connector-ref> > >>>>> </excludes> > >>>>> <master> > >>>>> <check-for-live-server>true</check-for-live-server> > >>>>> </master> > >>>>> <slave> > >>>>> <allow-failback>true</allow-failback> > >>>>> <restart-backup>true</restart-backup> > >>>>> <scale-down/> > >>>>> </slave> > >>>>> </colocated> > >>>>> </replication> > >>>>> </ha-policy> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 27 Mar 2023, at 17:26, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 ! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
