Thanks again Johan. As the failover is configured at the client end how
would the configuration for combined deployment look like?
I was thinking on the lines of NOB because the messages are forwarded to
other broker(s) thus achieving failover capabilities in case the
original broker is failed the duplicate messages are available on second
(other) broker(s). Am I off in my assumption?
On 12/1/15 9:35 AM, Johan Edstrom wrote:
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.
