RE: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 17:20:31 +0100, Vilius Šumskas wrote: >[...] > As an alternative, does anybody know if I can use non-HTTP SSL load balancer > and set client URI to something like ssl://loadbalancer_ho

Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

grations? > > BR, > - Simon > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 6:01 PM > > To: users@activemq.apache.org > > Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question > > > > Hi

Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

rom: Jean-Baptiste Onofré > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 6:01 PM > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question > > Hi, > > masterslave: transport is deprecated. You can achieve the same with > randomize=false basically. > > Co

RE: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

that's possible :)). -- Vilius -Original Message- From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 6:01 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question Hi, masterslave: transport is deprecated. You can achieve the same w

Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

Hi, masterslave: transport is deprecated. You can achieve the same with randomize=false basically. Correct: updateClusterClientOnRemove is only for network connection, but when you have active/active (so a real network). No, the clients won't be stuck: they will reconnect to the new master.

RE: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

t: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 7:01 AM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question Hi No need to use networkConnector with master/slave. Just use failover on the client side. So basically, 1. Brokers side, you shared the same filesystem (using NFS, LUN

Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

Hi No need to use networkConnector with master/slave. Just use failover on the client side. So basically, 1. Brokers side, you shared the same filesystem (using NFS, LUN, whatever), and you configure kahadb to point on the same filesystem in activemq.xml 2. On client side, you can failover:(ma

ActiveMQ 5.16.x Master/Slave topology question

Hi, I‘m trying to setup a simple ActiveMQ 5.16.x master/slave cluster using shared filesystem option. I just need one broker running at any given time and a slave for HA. The filesystem part is clear and I have already configured it according to ActiveMQ requirements. What I don’t understand

Re: ActiveMQ Topology Question - possible?

iterature about activemq that I could read? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---possible--tp28970927p28979374.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: ActiveMQ Topology Question - possible?

T1 topic will be viewed as one, but make sure you configure forwarding > bridges between the two brokers. > > Thanks! > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---possible--tp28970927p28973621.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: ActiveMQ Topology Question - possible?

rk is up and running again and B1 and B2 can communicate again, will the brokers be "smart" enough to merge these two T1 topic instances, or will B1 and B2 see the two T1 topics as different? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---p

Re: ActiveMQ Topology Question - possible?

tree structure. Is there anything that would prevent this from being > possible? > > > Thanks. > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---possible--tp28970927p28971659.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

ActiveMQ Topology Question - possible?

m the root to a single node, and 3) the blue arrows, indicating the upwards sending from a single child node to the root node. http://old.nabble.com/file/p28970927/amq-tree.jpg Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---possible--tp28970927p289

Re: ActiveMQ topology question (Store and Forward)

this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-topology-question-%28Store-and-Forward%29-tp15179713s2354p15203188.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: ActiveMQ topology question (Store and Forward)

> I want all the data from all the collector Q's to get forwarded into a > single main queue on the server broker. Of course I want the framework to > do it for me, so I'll benefit all the cool features it has to offer. > > Can this be achieved using ActiveMQ? >

ActiveMQ topology question (Store and Forward)

benefit all the cool features it has to offer. Can this be achieved using ActiveMQ? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-topology-question-%28Store-and-Forward%29-tp15179713s2354p15179713.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Topology Question

wo brokers per data centres using JDBC master/slave to the > local DB. > > Then you can create a durable topic subscription on each data centre > to listen for its own set of updates from ther others ; then you can > either leave the brokers separate and have multiple consumers in each > data centre which connect to each data centre using failover: or you > can use a network to store-and-forward messages from broker-to-broker. > > -- > > James > --- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Topology-Question-tf3231705s2354.html#a9020160 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Topology Question

On 2/17/07, Rob Bugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the input, James. I'm using Postgresql so I don't think there is a DB vendor solution. Are you suggesting to create different topics for each datacenter or share the same topic across all the datacenters? You could use either really;

Re: Topology Question

from ther others ; then you can > either leave the brokers separate and have multiple consumers in each > data centre which connect to each data centre using failover: or you > can use a network to store-and-forward messages from broker-to-broker. > > -- > > James > --- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Topology-Question-tf3231705s2354.html#a9020160 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Topology Question

On 2/15/07, Rob Bugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello All, Is this the forum to ask How-To questons with regards to deploying ActiveMQ in a given topology? Sure! My topology -- In a nutshell, I have several datacenters that need certain data to be kept in sync. One datacenter

Topology Question

nabble.com/Topology-Question-tf3231705s2354.html#a8979342 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.