You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> on 2007/11/19 19:02:18 UTC

High Availability and Load Balancing

Hi,

I have been reading the ActiveMQ documentation but something isn't entirelly
clear to me.

I need to setup a network of brokers with the following requirements:
- I need all of them to be able to attend requests, to provide Load
Balancing between all the brokers / servers.
- I need that if one of them fails, its messages can be consumed by other
brokers.

Can this be done actually with ActiveMQ? If not, what's the closer approach
to this scenary I have in mind?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Luis Miguel García
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13841668
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ttmdev <jo...@ttmsolutions.com>.
I can't think of a reason why you couldn't have each of the three be a
'master' w/a corresponding slave. This is the kind of cluster topology I
thought you were after. 

http://www.sonicsoftware.com/products/sonicmq/index.ssp

Note in the diagram how the primary brokers in each of the clusters has a
passive slave that is backing it up.  You should be able to do the same with
ActiveMQ. However, as James mentioned, maybe all you need is one
master/slave pair? 

Joe   


ktecho wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Joe. Only a few more questions:
> 
> Can't I have brokers that are all of them "Master" brokers? I need all of
> them to be active, but provide a backup for the other brokers.
> 
> So if I have:
> - Broker-1
> - Broker-2
> - Broker-3
> 
> All the 3 brokers are active and receiving messages from producers, and
> dispatching them to consumers.
> 
> If broker-2 fails, broker-1 and broker-3 will remain active and dispatch
> the broker-2's messages to consumers. That way I don't loose any message.
> 
> Can this be done?
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Luis Miguel García
> 
> 
> 
> ttmdev wrote:
>> 
>> ActiveMQ gives you this capability via the Pure, Shared File System, or
>> JDBC Master/Slave configurations.
>> 
>> These configurations allow you to set up a network of brokers that is
>> comprised of 'master' brokers, where each master is backed up by one or
>> more passive 'slave' brokers. If a master were to fail, one of the slaves
>> would jump into action and take over for the master. Your clients
>> (producers, consumers) can be configured to failover to the slave
>> if-and-when the master were to fail. 
>> 
>> Brokers can balance the message load across other brokers that have
>> appropriate consumers and consumers can be clustered so that you can
>> further balance the load across multiple consumers.    
>> 
>> Hope this helps - Joe
>>   
>> 
>> ktecho wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have been reading the ActiveMQ documentation but something isn't
>>> entirelly clear to me.
>>> 
>>> I need to setup a network of brokers with the following requirements:
>>> - I need all of them to be able to attend requests, to provide Load
>>> Balancing between all the brokers / servers.
>>> - I need that if one of them fails, its messages can be consumed by
>>> other brokers.
>>> 
>>> Can this be done actually with ActiveMQ? If not, what's the closer
>>> approach to this scenary I have in mind?
>>> 
>>> Thanks a lot in advance,
>>> 
>>> Luis Miguel García
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13844143
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ktecho <kt...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Joe. Only a few more questions:

Can't I have brokers that are all of them "Master" brokers? I need all of
them to be active, but provide a backup for the other brokers.

So if I have:
- Broker-1
- Broker-2
- Broker-3

All the 3 brokers are active and receiving messages from producers, and
dispatching them to consumers.

If broker-2 fails, broker-1 and broker-3 will remain active and dispatch the
broker-2's messages to consumers. That way I don't loose any message.

Can this be done?

Thanks a lot,

Luis Miguel García



ttmdev wrote:
> 
> ActiveMQ gives you this capability via the Pure, Shared File System, or
> JDBC Master/Slave configurations.
> 
> These configurations allow you to set up a network of brokers that is
> comprised of 'master' brokers, where each master is backed up by one or
> more passive 'slave' brokers. If a master were to fail, one of the slaves
> would jump into action and take over for the master. Your clients
> (producers, consumers) can be configured to failover to the slave
> if-and-when the master were to fail. 
> 
> Brokers can balance the message load across other brokers that have
> appropriate consumers and consumers can be clustered so that you can
> further balance the load across multiple consumers.    
> 
> Hope this helps - Joe
>   
> 
> ktecho wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have been reading the ActiveMQ documentation but something isn't
>> entirelly clear to me.
>> 
>> I need to setup a network of brokers with the following requirements:
>> - I need all of them to be able to attend requests, to provide Load
>> Balancing between all the brokers / servers.
>> - I need that if one of them fails, its messages can be consumed by other
>> brokers.
>> 
>> Can this be done actually with ActiveMQ? If not, what's the closer
>> approach to this scenary I have in mind?
>> 
>> Thanks a lot in advance,
>> 
>> Luis Miguel García
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13843177
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ttmdev <jo...@ttmsolutions.com>.
ActiveMQ gives you this capability via the Pure, Shared File System, or JDBC
Master/Slave configurations.

These configurations allow you to set up a network of brokers that is
comprised of 'master' brokers, where each master is backed up by one or more
passive 'slave' brokers. If a master were to fail, one of the slaves would
jump into action and take over for the master. Your clients (producers,
consumers) can be configured to failover to the slave if-and-when the master
were to fail. 

Brokers can balance the message load across other brokers that have
appropriate consumers and consumers can be clustered so that you can further
balance the load across multiple consumers.    

Hope this helps - Joe
  

ktecho wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have been reading the ActiveMQ documentation but something isn't
> entirelly clear to me.
> 
> I need to setup a network of brokers with the following requirements:
> - I need all of them to be able to attend requests, to provide Load
> Balancing between all the brokers / servers.
> - I need that if one of them fails, its messages can be consumed by other
> brokers.
> 
> Can this be done actually with ActiveMQ? If not, what's the closer
> approach to this scenary I have in mind?
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance,
> 
> Luis Miguel García
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13842833
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
The reason for master/slave is to avoid catastrophic hardware failure
loosing messages. i.e. if you loose an active broker's hardware
machine (its disk or its data centre entirely) you've lost the
messages - with Master/Slave the slave is kept in sync so has all of
the messages the master had to avoid message loss in catastrophic
circumstances.

If you want all brokers to be active, just don't use master/slave.

On 20/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> James.Strachan wrote:
> >
> > On 20/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In a store and forward network of master/slave clusters, all the brokers
> >> receive messages?
> >
> > All brokers in a master/slave cluster receive the message; only the
> > master dispatches it to consumers.
> >
> > Then messages are stored and forwarded to other master/slave clusters
> > as they pass along the network-of-brokers (if there are consumers
> > available on other master/slave clusters).
> >
> >> That would be nice, as that way we can have all the
> >> parsers from all the machines working and busy. That's why I was looking
> >> for
> >> Active/Active mode.
> >
> > I still think you're missing something. The broker just dispatches
> > messages to consumers. Consumer are the things which would parse the
> > message and do something with it. To a broker; a message is a just a
> > blob of data to be routed around a network - the Consumer is the thing
> > which actually does something with it.
> >
>
> Yeah, I understand that consumers are the entitys that process messages.
> Sure I could have only one broker in one machine and two consumers in two
> different machines that make the parsing, but I think it would be even
> better if I could have two active brokers with it's active producer (one set
> of broker/parser on each machine), so I have the load balanced between both
> machines. That way, if one of them fails, the other one can still process
> it's messages and the ones from the machin that contained the broker that
> failed.
>
> If I understood you correctly, using Master/Slave "store and forward", only
> one of the two brokers will dispatch messages (perhaps to both machines), so
> I loose the capacity of the other broker, that is in passive state, waiting
> for the Master broker to die. It's just that it would be nice if both
> brokers could work together as Masters, and be so friendly that if one them
> fails, the other one can finish dispatching its messages.
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13864600
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ktecho <kt...@gmail.com>.


James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> On 20/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In a store and forward network of master/slave clusters, all the brokers
>> receive messages?
> 
> All brokers in a master/slave cluster receive the message; only the
> master dispatches it to consumers.
> 
> Then messages are stored and forwarded to other master/slave clusters
> as they pass along the network-of-brokers (if there are consumers
> available on other master/slave clusters).
> 
>> That would be nice, as that way we can have all the
>> parsers from all the machines working and busy. That's why I was looking
>> for
>> Active/Active mode.
> 
> I still think you're missing something. The broker just dispatches
> messages to consumers. Consumer are the things which would parse the
> message and do something with it. To a broker; a message is a just a
> blob of data to be routed around a network - the Consumer is the thing
> which actually does something with it.
> 

Yeah, I understand that consumers are the entitys that process messages.
Sure I could have only one broker in one machine and two consumers in two
different machines that make the parsing, but I think it would be even
better if I could have two active brokers with it's active producer (one set
of broker/parser on each machine), so I have the load balanced between both
machines. That way, if one of them fails, the other one can still process
it's messages and the ones from the machin that contained the broker that
failed.

If I understood you correctly, using Master/Slave "store and forward", only
one of the two brokers will dispatch messages (perhaps to both machines), so
I loose the capacity of the other broker, that is in passive state, waiting
for the Master broker to die. It's just that it would be nice if both
brokers could work together as Masters, and be so friendly that if one them
fails, the other one can finish dispatching its messages.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13864600
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 20/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In a store and forward network of master/slave clusters, all the brokers
> receive messages?

All brokers in a master/slave cluster receive the message; only the
master dispatches it to consumers.

Then messages are stored and forwarded to other master/slave clusters
as they pass along the network-of-brokers (if there are consumers
available on other master/slave clusters).

> That would be nice, as that way we can have all the
> parsers from all the machines working and busy. That's why I was looking for
> Active/Active mode.

I still think you're missing something. The broker just dispatches
messages to consumers. Consumer are the things which would parse the
message and do something with it. To a broker; a message is a just a
blob of data to be routed around a network - the Consumer is the thing
which actually does something with it.

-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ktecho <kt...@gmail.com>.
In a store and forward network of master/slave clusters, all the brokers
receive messages? That would be nice, as that way we can have all the
parsers from all the machines working and busy. That's why I was looking for
Active/Active mode.



James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> You can create a store and forward network of master/slave clusters if
> you really need to - though I doubt you'll ever need to - but at least
> you can tell your customer that yes, if you need to, you can run
> multiple master/slave clusters in a store/forward network.
> 
> On 20/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't done any performance test by now (besides testing some
>> sending/receiving stuff in my notebook), but you sure can understand that
>> I
>> must provide a Scalability Guide to my customer, so even if I can process
>> "one hundred million messages a second", I need to provide him with a
>> guide
>> just in case he need "two hundred million messages a second". That's why
>> I
>> need to fully understand how this works in ActiveMQ, but I found the docs
>> to
>> be a bit messy. Could be that english is not my native tongue, too.
>>
>> The machines that runs the brokers should do some more work (some parsing
>> and inserting into file or BBDD), so it would be nice if we can use all
>> of
>> them (even if "all" is 2 or 3) as Masters, as using Slaves means
>> something
>> like calling the solution Active/Pasive, instead of Active/Active.
>>
>> Could I use two or three (just in case I need them) different Active
>> (master) brokers using journaled files or database, and telling them that
>> if
>> one of them fails, the others takes its messages and routes them to
>> consumers? Or that can only be done with Master/Slave (Active/Passive)
>> configurations?
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>>
>> James.Strachan wrote:
>> >
>> > On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Something like 860 KB/sec of text encapsulated into JMS messages of
>> about
>> >> 150
>> >> bytes each one, coming from 42 machines. The problem is that we need
>> to
>> >> do
>> >> some parsing of the messages on the machine, and that the number of
>> >> clients
>> >> could potentially grow. That's why we need some brokers to be Master.
>> >
>> > So here's the common misconception. You can have thousands and
>> > thousands of JMS clients processing messages concurrently on queues.
>> > However a single message broker (or master/slave cluster) can deal
>> > with this kind of volume without breaking into a sweat.
>> >
>> > Have you tried doing some performance benchmarking yet?
>> >
>> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq-performance-module-users-manual.html
>> >
>> >
>> >> The only way to provide HA and Load Balancing is to increase the
>> number
>> >> of
>> >> server in pairs (master/slave)?
>> >
>> > See this for more background
>> > http://activemq.apache.org/clustering.html
>> >
>> > --
>> > James
>> > -------
>> > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> > Open Source Integration
>> > http://open.iona.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13848519
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source Integration
> http://open.iona.com
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13860437
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
You can create a store and forward network of master/slave clusters if
you really need to - though I doubt you'll ever need to - but at least
you can tell your customer that yes, if you need to, you can run
multiple master/slave clusters in a store/forward network.

On 20/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't done any performance test by now (besides testing some
> sending/receiving stuff in my notebook), but you sure can understand that I
> must provide a Scalability Guide to my customer, so even if I can process
> "one hundred million messages a second", I need to provide him with a guide
> just in case he need "two hundred million messages a second". That's why I
> need to fully understand how this works in ActiveMQ, but I found the docs to
> be a bit messy. Could be that english is not my native tongue, too.
>
> The machines that runs the brokers should do some more work (some parsing
> and inserting into file or BBDD), so it would be nice if we can use all of
> them (even if "all" is 2 or 3) as Masters, as using Slaves means something
> like calling the solution Active/Pasive, instead of Active/Active.
>
> Could I use two or three (just in case I need them) different Active
> (master) brokers using journaled files or database, and telling them that if
> one of them fails, the others takes its messages and routes them to
> consumers? Or that can only be done with Master/Slave (Active/Passive)
> configurations?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
>
> James.Strachan wrote:
> >
> > On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Something like 860 KB/sec of text encapsulated into JMS messages of about
> >> 150
> >> bytes each one, coming from 42 machines. The problem is that we need to
> >> do
> >> some parsing of the messages on the machine, and that the number of
> >> clients
> >> could potentially grow. That's why we need some brokers to be Master.
> >
> > So here's the common misconception. You can have thousands and
> > thousands of JMS clients processing messages concurrently on queues.
> > However a single message broker (or master/slave cluster) can deal
> > with this kind of volume without breaking into a sweat.
> >
> > Have you tried doing some performance benchmarking yet?
> > http://activemq.apache.org/activemq-performance-module-users-manual.html
> >
> >
> >> The only way to provide HA and Load Balancing is to increase the number
> >> of
> >> server in pairs (master/slave)?
> >
> > See this for more background
> > http://activemq.apache.org/clustering.html
> >
> > --
> > James
> > -------
> > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Open Source Integration
> > http://open.iona.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13848519
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ktecho <kt...@gmail.com>.
I haven't done any performance test by now (besides testing some
sending/receiving stuff in my notebook), but you sure can understand that I
must provide a Scalability Guide to my customer, so even if I can process
"one hundred million messages a second", I need to provide him with a guide
just in case he need "two hundred million messages a second". That's why I
need to fully understand how this works in ActiveMQ, but I found the docs to
be a bit messy. Could be that english is not my native tongue, too.

The machines that runs the brokers should do some more work (some parsing
and inserting into file or BBDD), so it would be nice if we can use all of
them (even if "all" is 2 or 3) as Masters, as using Slaves means something
like calling the solution Active/Pasive, instead of Active/Active.

Could I use two or three (just in case I need them) different Active
(master) brokers using journaled files or database, and telling them that if
one of them fails, the others takes its messages and routes them to
consumers? Or that can only be done with Master/Slave (Active/Passive)
configurations?

Thanks a lot.



James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Something like 860 KB/sec of text encapsulated into JMS messages of about
>> 150
>> bytes each one, coming from 42 machines. The problem is that we need to
>> do
>> some parsing of the messages on the machine, and that the number of
>> clients
>> could potentially grow. That's why we need some brokers to be Master.
> 
> So here's the common misconception. You can have thousands and
> thousands of JMS clients processing messages concurrently on queues.
> However a single message broker (or master/slave cluster) can deal
> with this kind of volume without breaking into a sweat.
> 
> Have you tried doing some performance benchmarking yet?
> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq-performance-module-users-manual.html
> 
> 
>> The only way to provide HA and Load Balancing is to increase the number
>> of
>> server in pairs (master/slave)?
> 
> See this for more background
> http://activemq.apache.org/clustering.html
> 
> -- 
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source Integration
> http://open.iona.com
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13848519
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Something like 860 KB/sec of text encapsulated into JMS messages of about 150
> bytes each one, coming from 42 machines. The problem is that we need to do
> some parsing of the messages on the machine, and that the number of clients
> could potentially grow. That's why we need some brokers to be Master.

So here's the common misconception. You can have thousands and
thousands of JMS clients processing messages concurrently on queues.
However a single message broker (or master/slave cluster) can deal
with this kind of volume without breaking into a sweat.

Have you tried doing some performance benchmarking yet?
http://activemq.apache.org/activemq-performance-module-users-manual.html


> The only way to provide HA and Load Balancing is to increase the number of
> server in pairs (master/slave)?

See this for more background
http://activemq.apache.org/clustering.html

-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ktecho <kt...@gmail.com>.
Something like 860 KB/sec of text encapsulated into JMS messages of about 150
bytes each one, coming from 42 machines. The problem is that we need to do
some parsing of the messages on the machine, and that the number of clients
could potentially grow. That's why we need some brokers to be Master.

The only way to provide HA and Load Balancing is to increase the number of
server in pairs (master/slave)?

Thanks. 



James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We need to receive JMS log messages from several machines. Initially,
>> we're
>> going to setup 2 machines, but this is expected to grow as the load grows
>> as
>> well. That's why I cannot use the Master/Slave1/Slave2/Slave3 schema. I
>> need
>> all the brokers to be up and running, and if one of them fails (the
>> machine
>> shuts down), the other brokers should process the messages of the broker
>> that has failed.
> 
> I repeat - what kind of load are you talking about? A single
> master/slave cluster can usually handle most peoples load requirements
> - as its easy to scale with just more producers & consumers.
> -- 
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source Integration
> http://open.iona.com
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13844866
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We need to receive JMS log messages from several machines. Initially, we're
> going to setup 2 machines, but this is expected to grow as the load grows as
> well. That's why I cannot use the Master/Slave1/Slave2/Slave3 schema. I need
> all the brokers to be up and running, and if one of them fails (the machine
> shuts down), the other brokers should process the messages of the broker
> that has failed.

I repeat - what kind of load are you talking about? A single
master/slave cluster can usually handle most peoples load requirements
- as its easy to scale with just more producers & consumers.
-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ttmdev <jo...@ttmsolutions.com>.
Note that a slave does not have to run on the same machine as its master. 


ktecho wrote:
> 
> We need to receive JMS log messages from several machines. Initially,
> we're going to setup 2 machines, but this is expected to grow as the load
> grows as well. That's why I cannot use the Master/Slave1/Slave2/Slave3
> schema. I need all the brokers to be up and running, and if one of them
> fails (the machine shuts down), the other brokers should process the
> messages of the broker that has failed.
> 
> What should be the best approach to this needs?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> James.Strachan wrote:
>> 
>> Note that "network of brokers" usually means a store and forward
>> network traditionally, which is not a master/slave cluster which is
>> what you probably want.
>> 
>> BTW what kind of load do you need? I suspect a single master/slave
>> cluster of brokers is all you need.
>> 
>> 
>> On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been reading the ActiveMQ documentation but something isn't
>>> entirelly
>>> clear to me.
>>>
>>> I need to setup a network of brokers with the following requirements:
>>> - I need all of them to be able to attend requests, to provide Load
>>> Balancing between all the brokers / servers.
>>> - I need that if one of them fails, its messages can be consumed by
>>> other
>>> brokers.
>>>
>>> Can this be done actually with ActiveMQ? If not, what's the closer
>>> approach
>>> to this scenary I have in mind?
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot in advance,
>>>
>>> Luis Miguel García
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13841668
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> James
>> -------
>> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>> 
>> Open Source Integration
>> http://open.iona.com
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13844144
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by ktecho <kt...@gmail.com>.
We need to receive JMS log messages from several machines. Initially, we're
going to setup 2 machines, but this is expected to grow as the load grows as
well. That's why I cannot use the Master/Slave1/Slave2/Slave3 schema. I need
all the brokers to be up and running, and if one of them fails (the machine
shuts down), the other brokers should process the messages of the broker
that has failed.

What should be the best approach to this needs?

Thanks.



James.Strachan wrote:
> 
> Note that "network of brokers" usually means a store and forward
> network traditionally, which is not a master/slave cluster which is
> what you probably want.
> 
> BTW what kind of load do you need? I suspect a single master/slave
> cluster of brokers is all you need.
> 
> 
> On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been reading the ActiveMQ documentation but something isn't
>> entirelly
>> clear to me.
>>
>> I need to setup a network of brokers with the following requirements:
>> - I need all of them to be able to attend requests, to provide Load
>> Balancing between all the brokers / servers.
>> - I need that if one of them fails, its messages can be consumed by other
>> brokers.
>>
>> Can this be done actually with ActiveMQ? If not, what's the closer
>> approach
>> to this scenary I have in mind?
>>
>> Thanks a lot in advance,
>>
>> Luis Miguel García
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13841668
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> 
> Open Source Integration
> http://open.iona.com
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13844122
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: High Availability and Load Balancing

Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Note that "network of brokers" usually means a store and forward
network traditionally, which is not a master/slave cluster which is
what you probably want.

BTW what kind of load do you need? I suspect a single master/slave
cluster of brokers is all you need.


On 19/11/2007, ktecho <kt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been reading the ActiveMQ documentation but something isn't entirelly
> clear to me.
>
> I need to setup a network of brokers with the following requirements:
> - I need all of them to be able to attend requests, to provide Load
> Balancing between all the brokers / servers.
> - I need that if one of them fails, its messages can be consumed by other
> brokers.
>
> Can this be done actually with ActiveMQ? If not, what's the closer approach
> to this scenary I have in mind?
>
> Thanks a lot in advance,
>
> Luis Miguel García
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancing-tf4838228s2354.html#a13841668
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com