You want to combine them, the NOB is for communication but JMS is still store and forward, i.e if a machine dies, you can have multiple paths, what was in the persistence store of said machine is still “dead” until the machine is revived, that’s where the Master / Slave(s) come in. They’ll jump in and start playing that persistence store.
/je > On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Rallavagu <rallav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Johan. > > My goal is to achieve high availability (with failover) for producer and > consumer in addition to mitigate a situation of "there is a chance that one > broker has producers but no consumers". > > As per the documentation, it sounds like NOB is an option which can offer > failover and scalability. I was wondering if Master/Slave is the only option > to achieve high availability but it appears to me that NOB can offer the > same. Wanted to check this with folks here in this list if there is anything > I am missing. > > > On 11/30/15 9:28 PM, Johan Edstrom wrote: >> What you probably want is a combination of HA and communication. >> >> HA I.e master and slave(s) (Depending on storage) gives you uptime. >> NOB gives you communication paths and as such scalability and for some value >> of it versatility. >> >> You can also use the two above and combine that with bridges to build small >> little scalable clouds that forward like say enterprise email systems. >> >> You can also go the completely different route and say that in your >> Enterprise you only use central brokers for messages between systems of >> importance, then you use local broker networks for message patterns, >> aggregation etc. >> >> >> There is no one solution here. If you have more specific questions it might >> be easier for people here to help as we might have more associations >> possible? >> >> /je >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Rallavagu <rallav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> After spending some time reading, with reference to the following link, >>> >>> http://activemq.apache.org/clustering.html >>> >>> What I am trying to figure out is if it is possible to achieve a cluster >>> with fault tolerance deploying with "Networks of brokers" or should I >>> consider "Master/Slave" in addition to "Networks of brokers". Not sure how >>> the hybrid deploying works. Any comments would help. Thanks. >>> >>> On 11/25/15 11:13 AM, Rallavagu wrote: >>>> Any takers on this? Thanks. >>>> >>>> On 11/24/15 1:37 PM, Rallavagu wrote: >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> What is the recommended deployment architecture for an enterprise? >>>>> >>>>> 1. Master/Slave with replicated Level DB >>>>> (http://activemq.apache.org/replicated-leveldb-store.html) >>>>> >>>>> 2. Network of Brokers for scalability >>>>> >>>>> 3. Hybrid >>>>> >>>>> In case of hybrid, is there a reference document that I could use? >>>>> Thanks. >>
