> Can failover protocol be used for network connectors? Yes, please see http://tmielke.blogspot.com/2011/09/activemq-network-bridge-to-masterslave.html
> Can destinations and > messages be shared for HA across the geo-redundant nodes? Using a network connector you do not share messages between brokers but you allow messages to travel between brokers. I.e. when a msg travels to a different broker it is deleted on the local broker. Msgs only travel to remote brokers within a network of brokers, when there are consumers registered on the remote broker. So this will not serve as a master/slave solution. Master / Slave is typically done on a shared resource (file system or database). This will be difficult to setup between brokers on different geo locations. Pure master slave replicates everything but do you really want this over a WAN connection? Typically users set up master/slave on nodes within one geo location and connect geo location using a network connector. Torsten Mielke tors...@fusesource.com tmie...@blogspot.com On Sep 28, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Stevo Slavić wrote: > Hello ActiveMQ users, > > Imagine 4 nodes, 2 per location, on each node on same location/LAN a > shared filesystem (separate node) used by two local brokers in shared > filesystem master slave (SFSMS) configuration. Can destinations and > messages be shared for HA across the geo-redundant nodes? > > Can failover protocol be used for network connectors? Then AMQ brokers > on one location could connect to brokers on other location via > failover protocol. Compared to transport connector failover handling, > if AMQ brokers from one location can not connect to neither of > failover AMQ brokers on other location (e.g. if other location is down > completely, neither of the SFSMS nodes are responding), they should > continue to operate as if nothing happened (slave not responding, > down). When other location is brought back up, before putting it > online one will have to sync the message storage manually, just like > in pure master slave. For each location, other location would be a > slave, in a pure master slave configuration. > > Does this make sense? Is it feasible with AMQ 5.5.0? > > Regards, > Stevo.
