Hello Tim,

yes, that was exactly my definition.

Maybe I misunderstood the documentation of ActiveMQ "network of brokers".

Kind Regards,
Andreas

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:

> My definition of a cluster is that a given message is available (without
> forwarding) from all nodes in the cluster and will remain available when a
> single node in the cluster is lost. Master-slave pairs are clusters (but
> not active-active clusters) under that definition, while a network of
> brokers is not.
>
> So Andi, is that the definition you were using when you wrote this
> question?
>
> Tim
>
> On Dec 6, 2017 5:35 AM, "Alec Henninger" <alechennin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Isn't network of brokers an active-active cluster?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017, 5:21 PM Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Not with ActiveMQ 5.x, since it doesn't have a capacity to do an
> > > active-active cluster, but ActiveMQ Artemis can. Have you looked at it?
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > On Dec 5, 2017 7:28 AM, "andi welchlin" <andi.welch...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to setup a active-active cluster of brokers using
> > ActiveMq.
> > > >
> > > > But I also would like to connect single ActiveMq satellite brokers to
> > > this
> > > > cluster while they should share some queues and exchanges. So this
> will
> > > be
> > > > pretty much like a federation between some satellite brokers and a
> > > central
> > > > broker cluster. Clients will connect to these satellite brokers using
> > > AMQP.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think this would be possible using ActiveMq?
> > > >
> > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > Andreas
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to