Hello, We're trying to determine the correct client failover URL for this scenario:
2 brokers in New York (master/slave) 2 brokers in Chicago (master/slave) Client connections from NY are prioritized (and randomized) to NY; failover to Chicago if no local brokers available. Client connections from Chicago are prioritized (and randomized) to Chicago; failover to NY if no local brokers available. Topology is full graph/NoB; one network hop separates any two brokers. What we've tried so far (assumes clients located in NY) Randomizes connections across local and remote brokers (not good) failover:(tcp://ny1,tcp://ny2,tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2) Always picks first local broker (not good) failover:(tcp://ny1:61600,tcp://ny2,tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2)?randomize=false No different than previous; always selects first broker failover:(tcp://ny1,tcp://ny2,tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2)?randomize=false&priorityBackup=true We haven't tried this yet, but is it possible to nest failover transports? If so, technically this should select the first group, NY brokers, randomizing connections automatically within that cluster, then moving to Chicago and doing the same if no brokers in NY are available. failover:( failover:(tcp://ny1,tcp://ny2), failover:(tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2))?randomize=false&priorityBackup=true We're exploring DNS and F5 options as well, but we want to leverage the software as much as possible before configuring infrastructure. Thank you Raffi This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole discretion, monitor, review, retain and/or disclose the content of all email communications.
