Andreas, I don't have enough experience with Artemis to be able to answer your question, so I've been hoping that one of the Artemis folks on this list will jump in to answer. Since that's not happening, you may want to start a fresh message thread asking your question specifically in the context of Artemis, in the hopes that people who might be ignoring this "5.x" thread might see and respond to a new Artemis thread.
Best, Tim On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:37 AM, andi welchlin <andi.welch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Tim, > > thank you. Now I got the difference. > > As far as I understood the Artemis documentation it is possible to > configure a cluster and also connect single satellite brokers to this > cluster. > > The satellite brokers can be connected using a bi-directional bridge so I > would use the core bridge and would use a network-connector where duplex is > set to true. > > Is this a way I could go? > > Kind Regards, > Andreas > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > > > Networks of brokers use store-and-forward to move messages between the > > brokers, and each message is on only one broker at a time so it is lost > (at > > least temporarily) if that broker goes offline. It's not a cluster under > > the definition we just laid out. > > > > Tim > > > > On Dec 6, 2017 6:36 AM, "andi welchlin" <andi.welch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
