Now, I am getting a clearer picture about the options. Essentially, NOB
provides load balancing while Master/Slave offers pure failover. In case
I go with combination where a Master/Slave cluster is configured with
NOB with other Master/Slave cluster how would the client failover
configuration would work?
Will a set of consumers always connect a one of the Master/Slave
cluster? In this case how would load balance work? Thanks.
On 12/1/15 11:32 AM, Basmajian, Raffi wrote:
NoB forwards messages based on consumer demand, not for achieving failover.
You can get failover on the client using standalone brokers, just use
failover:() protocol from client.
Master/Slave is true failover.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rallavagu [mailto:rallav...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 1:06 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ deployment [ EXTERNAL ]
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.
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.
