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 > > > > > > > > > >
