Hi Art and Tim

Thanks very much for your replies. It's a good point you mentioned this
design could be an anti-pattern.

Just to give more background for our use case. The main purpose of our
product is to collect data from LAN or WAN network devices. And the
collectors (producers) will push collected data to the remote consumer.
However, due to the complexity/variety of the environment, the connection
between producer and consumer can be temporarily unavailable, or the
consumer may not be able to consume the data fast enough, or the consumer is
just simply down. Then it requires each collector to be able to keep
collecting data and store the collected data individually. (this is why we
use local broker on the producer side and broker tempStore). Then once the
consumer is backup on line, the producer broker will send the data stored in
tempStore to the consumer.

Yes, we could consider using one broker at the consumer side. Then we may
face the following challenges:

1) Our current scale is the producers will generate 21MB~42MB data per
second in total. If the we use one broker only at the consumer side. Then if
the consumer restarts or goes down during the weekend, the consumer broker
will need 3.6TB~7.2TB disk space to store the collected data. Which is too
much requirement as a single node. However, if we distributed these space
cross 20 consumers, then it's 180GB~360GB, which is more acceptable to our
customers.

2) Besides, what if the consumer-producer network is down, for example due
to some network jam or firewall block, then if the producer doesn't have a
local broker, then it has nowhere to store the data or it needs extra
implementation to store the data. The continuity of collected data is
critical for our business. Then a local broker will help us to address this
issue.

So based on this info, welcome any advice or suggestions!

Regards,
-Yang




--
View this message in context: 
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-duplex-network-connector-dead-lock-5-13-1-5-11-1-tp4708952p4709270.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to