your ActiveMQ network of brokers experience

[Erwim Dondorp <fr...@dondorp.com>]

Hello,

I've implemented ActiveMQ with a distributed application using the
Network-of-Brokers (see
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html).
Now I'm trying to figure out whether Network-of-Brokers is a common pattern;
and on which scale it is actually used with other applications out there.

Can you please boast about your Network-of-ActiveMQ-brokers?
For me, a rough indication about the tolopogy (star, mesh, line, etc) and
the number of brokers will do.

thx!
Erwin



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html

Re: your ActiveMQ network of brokers experience

[Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>]

I've used a topology where small networked clusters (an enclave) each had a
gateway broker that was networked with the gateway brokers of other
enclaves. We configured the gateways so that only certain specific
destinations were allowed to forward through the gateways to the other
enclaves, based on the business logic of our system.

Tim

On Dec 10, 2017 5:13 PM, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Erwin,
>
> The NOB topology is very used, from my experience the most used in the
> past years especially for redundancy and high availability. I regularly
> deploy network of brokers with tens of brokers. It could go even higher,
> but there's rarely enough traffic to justify that.
>
> The topology is also dependent on your messaging apps. Star (hub/spoke) is
> very popular, full mesh is good with few brokers (advisories will kill
> you). Line I rarely useful. I prefer dynamic topologies.
>
> I hope this helps,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 12/10/2017 05:06 PM, Erwim Dondorp wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've implemented ActiveMQ with a distributed application using the
>> Network-of-Brokers (see
>> http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html).
>> Now I'm trying to figure out whether Network-of-Brokers is a common
>> pattern;
>> and on which scale it is actually used with other applications out there.
>>
>> Can you please boast about your Network-of-ActiveMQ-brokers?
>> For me, a rough indication about the tolopogy (star, mesh, line, etc) and
>> the number of brokers will do.
>>
>> thx!
>> Erwin
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805
>> .html
>>
>>

Re: your ActiveMQ network of brokers experience

[Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>]

Erwin,

The NOB topology is very used, from my experience the most used in the 
past years especially for redundancy and high availability. I regularly 
deploy network of brokers with tens of brokers. It could go even higher, 
but there's rarely enough traffic to justify that.

The topology is also dependent on your messaging apps. Star (hub/spoke) 
is very popular, full mesh is good with few brokers (advisories will 
kill you). Line I rarely useful. I prefer dynamic topologies.

I hope this helps,
Hadrian


On 12/10/2017 05:06 PM, Erwim Dondorp wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I've implemented ActiveMQ with a distributed application using the
> Network-of-Brokers (see
> http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html).
> Now I'm trying to figure out whether Network-of-Brokers is a common pattern;
> and on which scale it is actually used with other applications out there.
> 
> Can you please boast about your Network-of-ActiveMQ-brokers?
> For me, a rough indication about the tolopogy (star, mesh, line, etc) and
> the number of brokers will do.
> 
> thx!
> Erwin
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
>