Cool, thank you, Martyn!
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com> wrote: > No problem. My point about the JVM was not that the cluster will run > within the JVM. It's that the way an active active pair works, is that a > live and a backup server is started within the same JVM. So a 3 machine > cluster might look like this: > > Machine 1) Live A, Backup C > Machine 2) Live B, Backup A, > Machine 3) Live C, Backup B > > You have 3 physical machines each acting as a live and a backup for another > machine in the cluster. The statement you quoted sounds like a > distribution policy configuration option. ON_DEMAND will ensure that > messages are only distributed to other nodes in the cluster providing they > have consumers present. > > Cheers > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, andi welchlin <andi.welch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello Martyn, > > > > thank you for your answer. It was helpful. > > > > Yes, what you described is what I want to achieve ... but the cluster > > should not run within the JVM it should be spread around different > > locations worldwide. > > > > So basically what I want to do in the cluster is what I read in one of > your > > links: > > > > *Apache ActiveMQ Artemis cluster connections can be configured to only > > distribute to other nodes if they have matching consumers.* > > And to this cluster I would like to connect the satellite brokers. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Andreas > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Andreas, > > > > > > If I understand correctly you're wanting to create a single cluster, > with > > > active-active style availability, with some satellite brokers? > > > > > > To set up an active/active style HA cluster in Artemis, you can use > using > > > co-located pairs[1]. Essentially what this is doing is creating a live > > and > > > a backup broker in a single JVM. Where the backup here is acting as > the > > > backup for node on a separate machine. You can then add satellite > > brokers > > > that get a view into the HA cluster. You can control exactly which > > > addresses are shared between your HA cluster and individual brokers by > > > setting the address <address> on the cluster connection[2]. > > > > > > [1] https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/latest/ha.html > > > [2] https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/latest/clusters.html > > > > > > Thanks > > > Martyn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
