You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@camel.apache.org by Mick Knutson <mk...@baselogic.com> on 2011/06/23 16:12:08 UTC
Slightly off topic: choosing fan-out verse fail-over for activeMQ destinations?
I am trying to determine the best approach for a CXF message input
application taking POJO event objects from a farm of applications. 400k to
600k messages per day right now, but growing to 1.5M to 3M in the next 12-18
months.
I think that 1 machine can handle the load at this point, but I want a
fail-over. However, this would mean that one machine only gets used if the
other one goes down.
So, is it prudent to use the fan-out to dual servers, and if one goes down,
then other is picking up the slack anyways, and our WILY alerts us when the
server is down?
Or is there another strategy I should use for AMQ load balancing and
fail-over?
---
Thank You…
Mick Knutson, President
BASE Logic, Inc.
Enterprise Architecture, Design, Mentoring & Agile Consulting
p. (855) BASE-LOGIC: (227-3564-42)
p. (478) BASE-LOGIC (227-3564-42)
f. (855) BASE-LOGIC: (227-3564-42)
Website: http://www.baselogic.com
Blog: http://www.baselogic.com/blog/
Linked IN: http://linkedin.com/in/mickknutson
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mickknutson
---
Re: Slightly off topic: choosing fan-out verse fail-over for
activeMQ destinations?
Posted by Ashwin Karpe <ak...@fusesource.com>.
Hi,
Fanout and Failover are meant to address different concerns. Fanout is not
intended as a surrogate of failover. If done improperly it can create
duplication and incorrect processing especially if the brokers are in the
same network. It is primarily intended to broadcast a message over
essentially separate networks with no real interaction or connection to each
other.
Failover is a completely different thing consisting of 2 things. Client
failover and broker failover. Client failover causes a client with an
unreachable broker to attempt to connect to another broker. Brokers in a
master/slave setup may failover to each other.
http://activemq.apache.org/masterslave.html
http://activemq.apache.org/masterslave.html
I would recommend using a SAN and staying away from fanout strategies.
Cheers,
Ashwin...
-----
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashwin Karpe
Apache Camel Committer & Sr Principal Consultant
FUSESource (a Progress Software Corporation subsidiary)
http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://opensourceknowledge.blogspot.com
CamelOne 2011: http://fusesource.com/camel2011
---------------------------------------------------------
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Slightly-off-topic-choosing-fan-out-verse-fail-over-for-activeMQ-destinations-tp4517579p4518700.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Slightly off topic: choosing fan-out verse fail-over for
activeMQ destinations?
Posted by boday <be...@initekconsulting.com>.
what you want to use is ActiveMQ
http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html network of brokers .
This provides an "active/active" setup with both HA and scalability...
"This allows a client to connect to any broker in the network - and fail
over to another broker if there is a failure - providing from the clients
perspective a HA cluster of brokers."
BASE Logic, Inc. wrote:
>
> I am trying to determine the best approach for a CXF message input
> application taking POJO event objects from a farm of applications. 400k to
> 600k messages per day right now, but growing to 1.5M to 3M in the next
> 12-18
> months.
>
> I think that 1 machine can handle the load at this point, but I want a
> fail-over. However, this would mean that one machine only gets used if the
> other one goes down.
>
> So, is it prudent to use the fan-out to dual servers, and if one goes
> down,
> then other is picking up the slack anyways, and our WILY alerts us when
> the
> server is down?
>
> Or is there another strategy I should use for AMQ load balancing and
> fail-over?
>
>
> ---
> Thank You…
>
> Mick Knutson, President
>
> BASE Logic, Inc.
> Enterprise Architecture, Design, Mentoring & Agile Consulting
> p. (855) BASE-LOGIC: (227-3564-42)
> p. (478) BASE-LOGIC (227-3564-42)
> f. (855) BASE-LOGIC: (227-3564-42)
>
> Website: http://www.baselogic.com
> Blog: http://www.baselogic.com/blog/
> Linked IN: http://linkedin.com/in/mickknutson
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mickknutson
> ---
>
-----
Ben O'Day
IT Consultant -http://consulting-notes.com
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Slightly-off-topic-choosing-fan-out-verse-fail-over-for-activeMQ-destinations-tp4517579p4519420.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.