[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       activemq-users
Subject:    RE: ActiveMQ Network of Brokers plus HA for messages
From:       Tim Bain <tbain () alumni ! duke ! edu>
Date:       2015-09-29 13:17:31
Message-ID: CAPVVMa8zpYzt0dLay3KC2ZBZ6aNBexB=CUOcsNTHAfLbPAaziw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


You're right, "cluster" isn't a term with an unambiguous definition.  Your
restatement of my point removes the ambiguity without changing the point.
On Sep 29, 2015 6:42 AM, "Basmajian, Raffi" <rbasmajian@ofiglobal.com>
wrote:

> Tim,
>
> To be clear, NoB and M/S are mutually exclusive within the same
> master/slave group, but the same does not hold true for "cluster" given its
> ambiguity.
>
> Raffi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tbain98@gmail.com [mailto:tbain98@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bain
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 12:55 AM
> To: ActiveMQ Users
> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ Network of Brokers plus HA for messages [ EXTERNAL ]
> Importance: High
>
> They're mutually exclusive within a specific cluster of nodes, but you can
> compose a network of brokers out of multiple master/slave cluster.
>
> So (to pick a random example) if you have clusters made of M1/S1, M2/S2,
> and M3/S3 and wanted a NOB with connections between clusters 1 and 2 and
> between 2 and 3, you could configure M1, S1, M3, and S3 to each have a
> duplex failover networkConnectors to both M2 and S2, i.e.
> failover:(tcp://M2,tcp://S2).  Only one node of each cluster will be
> active at a time, so if M3 is active, it will attempt to connect to M2
> first and if S2 is active then M3 will fail over to S2 when it can't
> connect to M2.
> S3 won't be active in this example, so you'll have only a single duplex
> networkConnector between S2 and M3.
>
> All of your clients will need to use the failover protocol containing at
> least one pair of master/slave brokers to guarantee that there will be at
> least one broker available to the client at all times, though you could
> throw all 6 brokers into a single failover URI if you wanted to be able to
> connect to any broker in the network.
>
> Tim
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:29 PM, phang76 <paulhanton@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > We have been looking at options for configuring HA with AMQ/ActiveMQ.
> >
> > Our requirements are:
> >
> > 1.      Active/Active broker connectivity – producers and consumers can
> > connect
> > to any broker.
> > 2.      No loss of persistent messages in the event a broker node fails.
> >
> > Based on reading of the ActiveMQ documentation it appears we can
> > achieve 1 with a network of brokers deployment and 2 with Master Slave
> configuration.
> >
> > The question is are Network of Brokers and Master/Slave mutually
> exclusive?
> > If not is there a supported configuration for concurrently using both?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Network-of-Brokers-plus
> > -HA-for-messages-tp4702395.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing
> > list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
> This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary,
> privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the
> person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
> disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended
> recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return
> e-mail and delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole discretion,
> monitor, review, retain and/or disclose the content of all email
> communications.
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]