Jim, "Pure" master slave was deprecated, not "Shared storage" master slave. I can't comment on LevelDB.
...deprecated: http://activemq.apache.org/pure-master-slave.html ..what we use with ActiveMQ 5.11 and NFSv4 storage; it's solid and works well: http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html For NFSv4, we use these settings which offer good balance between performance and recovery time: Client: nfsvers=4,soft,timeo=100,retrans=1,noac,acregmax=5,acdirmax=5,lookupcache=none Server: rw,sync -----Original Message----- From: James A. Robinson [mailto:j...@highwire.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:32 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ deployment [ EXTERNAL ] So when I was building my system I had wanted to use M/S, but the documentation had indicated the old M/S was deprecated in favor of the newer replicated LevelDB store. There are some stability issues with replicated LevelDB (w/ the code handling the zookeeper connection). Do you use an older configuration to handle M/S? Jim On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM Basmajian, Raffi <rbasmaj...@ofiglobal.com> wrote: > That's exactly the configuration we're building; M/S pairs with NoB, > connected via complete graph. > > All clients connect using wide-IP "failover:(tcp://eventbus:61616)", > that's it. We did this for two reasons: > 1) to avoid messy failover configuration on the client, > 2) to avoid client-reconfig when topology is scaled out. > > Each broker has a special Http service that runs inside broker and > queries local JMX, responds with following JSON: > > {role:master} or {role:slave} > > This makes it easy to implement heartbeat logic using hardware > load-balancer, like F5. > F5 now pings each broker every 10s to determine which ones are active > and which are "master"; slaves and inactive nodes are removed from F5 pool. > When client connects using "failover:(tcp://eventbus:61616)", DNS > routes to F5 first, then F5 connects client to master broker in > nearest datacenter; this is done for initial connection only. > If connection fails, assuming transport connector is configured to > update client with cluster changes, the client will reconnect on its > own; F5 does not handle that, which is exactly what we wanted. Control > initial connect to simplify client config, but leverage ActiveMQ > cluster aware clients library to manage connection failovers. > > Hope that helps, > > Raffi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rallavagu [mailto:rallav...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:57 PM > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: ActiveMQ deployment [ EXTERNAL ] > > 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. > > > 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.
