Remember that a NoB is not a "cluster", per se. There is no replication between brokers. So, if one broker goes down while there are messages sitting on it, then those messages are lost until the broker comes back online. If you're looking for high availability, then you're barking up the wrong tree. You need to look into a Master/Slave setup.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM, dunnlow <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks James. Well, yes... sort of. If a producer sends to one broker, I > can consume from either as expected...IF both brokers are ok. My concern > (that I have from my relayed past experience) is that if I use the failover > uri and there is a problem, that my consumer will miss some of the message > produced. Maybe this isn't a legitimate concern (although, in my > skepticism's defense, the admin who configured it expressed a lack in > confidence about it's configuration). Thus, I think the safest way forward > may be to point a consumer to each of the brokers. Considering more brokers > may come online, what I guess there would be ideally it to funnel all of the > brokers into a single endpoint from which I could process. Does that make > sense or am I way overcomplicating it? Thanks again. > > > James Carman wrote >> The NoB should be routing your messages for you, shouldn't it? > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Best-way-to-consuming-same-queue-from-two-brokers-tp5742100p5742105.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
