Hi Ami, when you say they are not even, what the exact ratio is?
BTW. regarding performance, I see that you used smaller value for the prefetch size. Generally higher values have better performances. Also, check out conf/activemq-throughput.xml for some tips regarding increasing the throughput. Cheers -- Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ Blog - http://www.nighttale.net On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:23 AM, ami.rozen <a...@peer39.com> wrote: > > Hi Clark > > Thanks for your answer. > We looked into the client-server architecture but we don't think it is > better for us since we cache the messages in memory and don't write them to > the disk. We rather lose some messages but have a fast handling. > If you think we are wrong please advise. > One other question, we looked into the network of brokers NetworkConnector > Properties configuration and had a hard time to understand what these mean: > 1. dynamicOnly > 2. conduitSubscriptions > Can they boost our performance ? > > Thank you > Ami > > > cobrien wrote: >> >> Ami, >> Well the nice thing about ActiveMQ is almost everything is configurable. >> From your description I gather you have a requirement for high >> availability. >> If this is the only reason for using multiple brokers then using a >> master-slave >> would be simplify things for you. >> >> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html >> >> Clark >> >> www.ttmsolutions.com >> ActiveMQ reference guide at >> http://bit.ly/AMQRefGuide >> >> >> >> >> ami.rozen wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> We are using the activemq brokers in a high scale production environment. >>> To prevent downtime we decided to configure the brokers to work as a >>> network of brokers. >>> There are 2 brokers which use a fixed list of urls to connect to each >>> other. >>> The clients and services use the failover url with a list of the >>> available brokers. >>> Currently we have 2 clients that connect to the brokers and we saw (in >>> the brokers UI) that the messages aren't distributed in an even way. >>> 1) Is this ok ? >>> 2) is there a configuration to distribute the messages evenly between the >>> brokers ? >>> 3) Is there an additional configuration which can bust the performance ? >>> We don't mind losing messages if one of the brokers is down. >>> >>> The configuration we are using in the broker xml file is: >>> <networkConnectors> >>> <networkConnector name="default-dev13" >>> uri="static://(tcp://host_name:61616)"/> >>> </networkConnectors> >>> <!-- The transport connectors ActiveMQ will listen to --> >>> <transportConnectors> >>> <transportConnector name="openwire" >>> uri="tcp://localhost:61616?jms.prefetchPolicy.queuePrefetch=100&jms.useAsyncSend=true&wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration=0"/> >>> <transportConnector name="ssl" uri="ssl://localhost:61617"/> >>> <transportConnector name="stomp" >>> uri="stomp://localhost:61613"/> >>> <transportConnector name="xmpp" >>> uri="xmpp://localhost:61222"/> >>> </transportConnectors> >>> Thank you >>> Ami >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/network-of-brokers-question-tp29020595p29082649.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
