But I'm concerned with respect to scalability. I'm assuming the Network of Brokers was created such that the deployment could scale to a large number of consumers. What kind of scalability issues/limits will I have with a Master/Slave scenario?
Thanks! Shawn James.Strachan wrote: > > Yes, Master/Slave is the answer for high availability and to avoid > message loss if a broker dies. > > > On 2/7/07, spiderman2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm a New user. I'd like to use activemq for a Network Of Brokers / >> Clustered deployment. The catch is that I can't afford to loose a single >> message in the event of failure. >> >> In the Network of Brokers topology, I'm reading this isn't possible: >> >> "At any point in time the message will only exist in one broker's store >> at >> once until its consumed. In the future we will support high availability >> brokers using a master-slave protocol where we willl replicate a message >> on >> to a number of slave brokers for hot standby if the master broker were to >> be >> unavailable for a certain period of time." >> http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-distributed-queues-work.html >> http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-distributed-queues-work.html >> >> >> Today, is there a way to have High availability with a clustered >> approach? >> Should I just use a Master/Slave instead? >> >> >> Shawn >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Network-Of-Brokers-tf3189661s2354.html#a8854295 >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Network-Of-Brokers-tf3189661s2354.html#a8866669 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
