To quote: “This functionality isn't supported, and while it may be technically feasible to implement I'm not sure how much sense it makes overall.”
On 27 Mar 2023, at 19:16, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: 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 ! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > >
