I'm not sure about the exact behavior of ActiveMQ Classic here, but I do know what ActiveMQ Artemis does, and it doesn't behave according to your expectations.
I would be a bit surprised if ActiveMQ Classic behaved as you expect because it wouldn't scale very well. Moving messages around the network without clear demand also wouldn't scale well. Is there a particular reason why you expect these behaviors? If you're just looking for HA then I would definitely recommend an active/passive configuration since that's the only configuration that will actually provide HA for your data. I might also suggest you take a look at ActiveMQ Artemis as it has support for network-based replication rather than only shared storage for HA. Also, performance of a single node should be better especially as you scale up load. That way you can get excellent performance and HA at the same time. Justin On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 3:01 PM Marc Boorshtein <mboorsht...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When you say "queue" do you mean a JMS queue? > > > Yes. (right now just from the admin interface). > > > > > Why would you necessarily > > expect a queue created on one node to be created on a different node in > the > > network? > > > This is the mental block i'm having. What my thought is that if a queue > gets created in one broker it would get created in the other brokers. > Based on your question, that's not the case? The docs doesn't get into > detail here beyond the topologies so if there's a blog or book you'd > recommend to better explain how and when a message created in one broker > gets forwarded to another broker I'd appreciate it. > > > > > Also, what exactly are you doing to create the queue on amq0? > > > > > Right now, just using the admin interface. But my application will create > the queues using JMS on demand. > > > > > > Is there any demand (i.e. consumers) for the message on amq1 or amq2? > Also, > > if you're using a JMS queue then those messages will be shared among all > > consumers. > > > > Not yet, so based on your question I'm guessing that the message will only > get forwarded if there's a consumer for the same queue in the remote > broker? i'm looking more for HA then performance, so would I use > masterslave:(...) instead of sync:(...)? > > Thanks > Marc >
