A network of brokers can be used for HA as long as the network topology will remain fully connected in the face of N failures (for whatever value of N you choose to support, probably 1) and the clients' failover URIs will always contain a live broker in the face of the same failure(s).
But you could also consider master/slave pairs using LevelDB as the storage technology, which doesn't have a single point of failure. Tim On Sep 29, 2015 3:45 PM, "mhempleman" <matthew.hemple...@alstom.com> wrote: > Maybe I'm not using the network of brokers in the correct manner. Should a > network of brokers be used for HA, or just scalability and load balancing? > > We are not concerned with the loss of a few messages if one broker fails; > however, we want to make sure there is not a single point of failure in the > system (one broker node), and we want the client to failover seamlessly in > the event of a failure (which is not currently happening... see previous > message). I looked into master/slave setups, but each seems to have a > single point of failure. The failure points in the shared filesystem and > shared db configurations are obvious. Any advice would be greatly > appreciated. Thanks! > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers-XAException-on-Failover-tp4702355p4702445.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
