Hi Zagan-
The shared filesystem is usually faster (10-100x) than the shared
database approach. I believe its also simpler to manage. A queuing
system is going to thrash the Oracle database, and require a lot of db
maintenance (or at least it did when I last used it with Oracle 9).
I recommend using the shared filesystem using a SAN (or NFSv4).
Hope this helps,
Matt Pavlovich
On 2/13/12 2:11 AM, Zagan wrote:
Hello again,
at the moment I am analysing and evaluating the different Active MQ HA
possibilities.
At the Active MQ instance level I found
* Shared Nothing Master/Slave> two separate instances
* Shared Database Master/Slave> two instances, active-passive, sharing the
same database
* Shared File System Master/Slave> two instances, active-passive, sharing
the same filesystem
At the Active MQ client config level I found
* failover protocol
At the moment I favor using Shared Database Master/Slave using an Oracle RAC
DB to eliminate
the single point of failure on the message persistence layer.
Under http://activemq.apache.org/jdbc-support.html Oracle DB is listed as
supported database.
Do you know
- which versions are supported?
- is a RAC failover transparent to the Active MQ instance?
- how is the message persisted in Oracle DB? As BLOB? Can I configure the
persistence (i.e. to SQL query by Message Id)?
- which database is best supported?
- how big is performance impact, if I locate Master, Slave and Oracle DB on
different systems compared to a single broker instance using local file
system?
- Is special configuration of the broker instance needed due to the
increased latency?
- Is Shared Database faster than Shared Filesystem?
Thanks for any help!
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Choosing-the-right-HA-option-tp4383112p4383112.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
