Hmmm... I might have the config correct... I was confused by the fact that all the queues are display on the admin page of both boserver1 and boserver2... (but the messages seems to only bo delivered where they are supposed to...)
But could any verify that my config is correct? and that there isn't any more configuration I should/could use? BTJ On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:06:37 +0100 Bjørn T Johansen <b...@havleik.no> wrote: > Hmmm... That's the example I have used but I don't get the config correct... > > The is the config for the central broker: > > <networkConnector name="bridge_boserver1" > uri="static://(tcp://10.4.34.26:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" > conduitSubscriptions="false" > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> <excludedDestinations> > <queue > physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver2"/> > </excludedDestinations> > <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > <queue > physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver1"/> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <duplex>true</duplex> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > </networkConnector> > <networkConnector name="bridge_boserver2" > uri="static://(tcp://10.4.34.19:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" > conduitSubscriptions="false" > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> <excludedDestinations> > <queue > physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver1"/> > </excludedDestinations> > <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > <queue > physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver2"/> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <duplex>true</duplex> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > </networkConnector> > </networkConnectors> > > > > And this is for the boserver1 broker..: > > <networkConnectors> > <!-- by default just auto discover the other brokers --> > <!--<networkConnector name="default-nc" > uri="multicast://default"/>--> > <!-- Example of a static configuration: > <networkConnector name="host1 and host2" > uri="static://(tcp://host1:61616,tcp://host2:61616)"/> > --> > <networkConnector name="bridge" > uri="static://(tcp://10.4.34.10:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" > conduitSubscriptions="false" > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > <queue > physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver1"/> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <duplex>true</duplex> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > </networkConnector> > </networkConnectors> > > > And this is for the boserver2 broker..: > > <networkConnectors> > <!-- by default just auto discover the other brokers --> > <!-- Example of a static configuration: > <networkConnector name="host1 and host2" > uri="static://(tcp://host1:61616,tcp://host2:61616)"/> > --> > <networkConnector name="bridge" > uri="static://(tcp://10.4.34.10:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" > conduitSubscriptions="false" > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > <queue > physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver2"/> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > <duplex>true</duplex> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > </networkConnector> > </networkConnectors> > > > The problem is that all the queues are available on both boserver1 broker and > boserv2 broker (I thought that boserver1 should not see the bosever2 > queue and boserver2 should not have seen the boserver1 queue but they do). > > What I want is messages posted on boserver1 should only reach the central > broker (and not the boserver2 broker). Also messages posted on the central > broker should reach either boserver1 or boserver2 (and not based on a random > outcome which). Also some messages posted on the central broker should > be delivered to both boserver1 and boserver2 broker... > > > So what am I missing? > > > > BTJ > > > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:48:23 +0100 > Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> wrote: > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > this is exactly what network of brokers are supposed to do. Note that broker > > will forward a message to other broker only if there is a consumer for that > > destination on the other broker. You can ensure that messages go only to the > > next broker in the network, by setting networkTTL parameter to 1. You can > > also exclude some destinations for a certain network connector and ensure > > that messages are never forwarded. Take a look at > > http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html for more detailed > > examples. > > > > Hope this helps > > -- > > Dejan Bosanac > > > > Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ > > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > > Blog - http://www.nighttale.net > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bjørn T Johansen <b...@havleik.no> wrote: > > > > > Not sure how to configure this or if it's even possible with ActiveMQ. > > > The system we are want to use is as follows.: > > > > > > One central broker. > > > X number of "client brokers", placed in different location (over WAN) but > > > with contact to the central broker > > > > > > The clients connects to the "client brokers" and when they post a message > > > to a "client broker" it should be forwarded to the central broker where > > > someone should consume it. And when posting a message to the central > > > broker, it should be forwarded to one of the "client brokers" (depending > > > on > > > which > > > queue it's posted on), and a client can read it from the "client broker" > > > I.e no messages should transfer from one "client broker" to another > > > "client > > > broker", all messages should just travel between the central broker and > > > one of the "client brokers". > > > > > > The reason we want a configuration like this, is so messages can be posted > > > even if the network between a client and the central broker is down.. > > > > > > Did that make any sense? Is this possible? > > > I have been looking at a network of brokers but as fas as I can see, this > > > is more a load balancing configuration and that is not what we want... > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > BTJ > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Bjørn T Johansen > > > > > > b...@havleik.no > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Someone wrote: > > > "I understand that if you play a Windows CD backwards you hear strange > > > Satanic messages" > > > To which someone replied: > > > "It's even worse than that; play it forwards and it installs Windows" > > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
