I agree there should be an option to stick with the "initial" connectors rather than being forced to use the topology. This would be an option on the Netty connector. I think "useTopology" (defaults to true) would be a good name.
Justin On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:28 AM, cjaniake <christian.jani...@movile.com> wrote: > Hi there, I have been using the ActiveMQ Artemis JMS interface without > JNDI. > We are not using server discovery, we use static connectors instead. > In the connection factory configuration we supply a list of hosts, that are > located on two different datacenters, acting as two different clusters. > Using the RoundRobinConnectionLoadBalancingPolicy we expected to connect > to > every server on the list, but that was not what happened. > Debugging the code we realized that, after connecting to the first (random) > host on the list, the Server Locator do not use the initial connectors list > anymore, it uses the received topology for the next connections. > We understand this might be useful in simpler scenarios, but this is not > working for us. > On a sandbox environment we have even tried to remove the cluster > connection > configuration, for the servers to act on a stadalone manner, but even > though > the server locator acts the same way, receiving a "topology" of only one > node and restrict the next connections this one host. > > There is a number of problems and inneficiencies we see on this approach. > If we have a cluster with 3 hosts for example, and we declare those on the > host list and get 3 connections using the round robin policy, we would > expect to get one connection for each host. But that's not what happens. > The > load balancing policy starts iterating over one list (the initial connector > list) and after the first successfull connection it continues iterating > over > another list (the received topology), so most of the time you would get two > connections to the same host and none for one of them. > > In a scenario like we have here, with two clusters in different locations, > it is even worse. > We would like to know if we there is an option other than creating a > connection factory for each host we want to use, and if we can propose an > improvement. > We are willing to contribute with the development, if we have an > understanding on a possible solution for that problem. > > Thank you very much. > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ > ActiveMQConnectionFactory-use-initial-connectors-instead-of- > received-topology-tp4729166.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
