You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> on 2006/04/21 08:58:27 UTC
could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
it do works for me.
but I have a another more complex challenge .
now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another AcitveMQ
broker2.
The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ broke3, while
here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and broker2(and
broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be connected .is that
networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use broker3 to
transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
Thanks.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4021349
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by Matthew Xie <an...@163.com>.
Hi Rob! Yes it works now and it do help me out of trouble.
Thank you very much!
rajdavies wrote:
>
> Hi Mathew,
>
> could you tell us if there's a an active subscriber on BrokerC for
> queue test_bj2ts
>
> cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> On 24 Apr 2006, at 06:05, Matthew Xie wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for your reply! James.
>> I do it as your suggestion but it still doesn't work. the problem
>> still
>> happened.
>> so i paste my configure scripts bellow, is there something wrong or
>> mistake?
>> if i use jmx console tool to inspect the queue, the BrokerB do have a
>> cousumer from BrokerC,
>> but why it can't get the message from it? is any one meet the
>> problem before
>> ?
>> and here still a problem puzzles me.
>> In brokerA, if I set the value of "networkTTL" for brokerA's
>> networkConnector is 2, then i send a message to brokerA(brokerA
>> will store
>> and forward message to brokeB) , now while the brokerB recieving
>> the message
>> from brokerA, i want it forward the message to BrokerC. so in
>> brokerB , need
>> i
>> to set the value of "networkTTL" as 2? so which one will work as i
>> set the
>> "networkTTL" value both of them?
>> I do need your help! Thanks!
>>
>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
>> name = bridgeA
>> dynamicOnly = false
>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
>> name = bridgeB
>> dynamicOnly = false
>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> rajdavies wrote:
>>>
>>> Networks have a time to live property - networkTTL = which by default
>>> is 1 - ie. messages only go one hop. Just increment this number to
>>> the number of hops you want the message to go through
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>> On 21 Apr 2006, at 10:09, Matthew Xie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
>>>> yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
>>>> i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but i
>>>> want to
>>>> make
>>>> brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to
>>>> brokerC
>>>> (or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to
>>>> reach the
>>>> broker(C|N)
>>>> here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
>>>> brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer
>>>> message to
>>>> brokerC.
>>>> here the configuration uses networks.
>>>> but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to
>>>> brokerB,
>>>> but then brokerB could not
>>>> transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is
>>>> here any
>>>> things wrong?
>>>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
>>>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>>>> failover="true">
>>>> name = bridgeA
>>>> dynamicOnly = false
>>>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>>>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> </networkConnector>
>>>>
>>>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>>>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>>>> failover="true">
>>>> name = bridgeB
>>>> dynamicOnly = false
>>>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>>>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> </networkConnector>
>>>>
>>>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to
>>>> brokerC
>>>> while it recieved message from brokerA.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it you are trying to achieve?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
>>>>> described here
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some
>>>>> form
>>>>> of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
>>>>> lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks James!
>>>>>> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have
>>>>>> more than
>>>>>> 3
>>>>>> brokers in use,
>>>>>> it will become more and more complex.
>>>>>> i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
>>>>>> The url is here:
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues
>>>>>> +work
>>>>>> here I quoted from this artical:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support
>>>>>> networks of
>>>>>> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so
>>>>>> that we can
>>>>>> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer
>>>>>> sends a
>>>>>> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers
>>>>>> to reach
>>>>>> its final destination."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to
>>>>>> work with
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples
>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default
>>>>>>> messages will
>>>>>>> be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
>>>>>>> consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based
>>>>>>> forwarding).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
>>>>>>> broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>> until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
>>>>>>> messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and
>>>>>>> failover
>>>>>>> (rather than store and forward).
>>>>>>> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>>>> it do works for me.
>>>>>>>> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>>>>>>>> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
>>>>>> AcitveMQ
>>>>>>>> broker2.
>>>>>>>> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ
>>>>>>>> broke3,
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and
>>>>>> broker2(and
>>>>>>>> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be
>>>>>>>> connected .is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use
>>>>>>>> broker3
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4022299
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>> -------
>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
>>>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4058503
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4112765
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by Matthew Xie <an...@163.com>.
Hi Rob! Yes it works now and it do help me out of trouble.
Thank you every much!
rajdavies wrote:
>
> Hi Mathew,
>
> could you tell us if there's a an active subscriber on BrokerC for
> queue test_bj2ts
>
> cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> On 24 Apr 2006, at 06:05, Matthew Xie wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for your reply! James.
>> I do it as your suggestion but it still doesn't work. the problem
>> still
>> happened.
>> so i paste my configure scripts bellow, is there something wrong or
>> mistake?
>> if i use jmx console tool to inspect the queue, the BrokerB do have a
>> cousumer from BrokerC,
>> but why it can't get the message from it? is any one meet the
>> problem before
>> ?
>> and here still a problem puzzles me.
>> In brokerA, if I set the value of "networkTTL" for brokerA's
>> networkConnector is 2, then i send a message to brokerA(brokerA
>> will store
>> and forward message to brokeB) , now while the brokerB recieving
>> the message
>> from brokerA, i want it forward the message to BrokerC. so in
>> brokerB , need
>> i
>> to set the value of "networkTTL" as 2? so which one will work as i
>> set the
>> "networkTTL" value both of them?
>> I do need your help! Thanks!
>>
>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
>> name = bridgeA
>> dynamicOnly = false
>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
>> name = bridgeB
>> dynamicOnly = false
>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> rajdavies wrote:
>>>
>>> Networks have a time to live property - networkTTL = which by default
>>> is 1 - ie. messages only go one hop. Just increment this number to
>>> the number of hops you want the message to go through
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>> On 21 Apr 2006, at 10:09, Matthew Xie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
>>>> yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
>>>> i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but i
>>>> want to
>>>> make
>>>> brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to
>>>> brokerC
>>>> (or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to
>>>> reach the
>>>> broker(C|N)
>>>> here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
>>>> brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer
>>>> message to
>>>> brokerC.
>>>> here the configuration uses networks.
>>>> but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to
>>>> brokerB,
>>>> but then brokerB could not
>>>> transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is
>>>> here any
>>>> things wrong?
>>>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
>>>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>>>> failover="true">
>>>> name = bridgeA
>>>> dynamicOnly = false
>>>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>>>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> </networkConnector>
>>>>
>>>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>>>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>>>> failover="true">
>>>> name = bridgeB
>>>> dynamicOnly = false
>>>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>>>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>>> </networkConnector>
>>>>
>>>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to
>>>> brokerC
>>>> while it recieved message from brokerA.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it you are trying to achieve?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
>>>>> described here
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some
>>>>> form
>>>>> of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
>>>>> lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks James!
>>>>>> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have
>>>>>> more than
>>>>>> 3
>>>>>> brokers in use,
>>>>>> it will become more and more complex.
>>>>>> i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
>>>>>> The url is here:
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues
>>>>>> +work
>>>>>> here I quoted from this artical:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support
>>>>>> networks of
>>>>>> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so
>>>>>> that we can
>>>>>> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer
>>>>>> sends a
>>>>>> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers
>>>>>> to reach
>>>>>> its final destination."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to
>>>>>> work with
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples
>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default
>>>>>>> messages will
>>>>>>> be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
>>>>>>> consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based
>>>>>>> forwarding).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
>>>>>>> broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>> until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
>>>>>>> messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and
>>>>>>> failover
>>>>>>> (rather than store and forward).
>>>>>>> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>>>> it do works for me.
>>>>>>>> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>>>>>>>> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
>>>>>> AcitveMQ
>>>>>>>> broker2.
>>>>>>>> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ
>>>>>>>> broke3,
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and
>>>>>> broker2(and
>>>>>>>> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be
>>>>>>>> connected .is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use
>>>>>>>> broker3
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4022299
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>> -------
>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
>>>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4058503
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4112765
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Mathew,
could you tell us if there's a an active subscriber on BrokerC for
queue test_bj2ts
cheers,
Rob
On 24 Apr 2006, at 06:05, Matthew Xie wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply! James.
> I do it as your suggestion but it still doesn't work. the problem
> still
> happened.
> so i paste my configure scripts bellow, is there something wrong or
> mistake?
> if i use jmx console tool to inspect the queue, the BrokerB do have a
> cousumer from BrokerC,
> but why it can't get the message from it? is any one meet the
> problem before
> ?
> and here still a problem puzzles me.
> In brokerA, if I set the value of "networkTTL" for brokerA's
> networkConnector is 2, then i send a message to brokerA(brokerA
> will store
> and forward message to brokeB) , now while the brokerB recieving
> the message
> from brokerA, i want it forward the message to BrokerC. so in
> brokerB , need
> i
> to set the value of "networkTTL" as 2? so which one will work as i
> set the
> "networkTTL" value both of them?
> I do need your help! Thanks!
>
> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
> name = bridgeA
> dynamicOnly = false
> conduitSubscriptions = true
> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> </networkConnector>
>
> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
> failover="true" networkTTL="2">
> name = bridgeB
> dynamicOnly = false
> conduitSubscriptions = true
> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> </networkConnector>
>
> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> rajdavies wrote:
>>
>> Networks have a time to live property - networkTTL = which by default
>> is 1 - ie. messages only go one hop. Just increment this number to
>> the number of hops you want the message to go through
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Rob
>> On 21 Apr 2006, at 10:09, Matthew Xie wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
>>> yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
>>> i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but i
>>> want to
>>> make
>>> brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to
>>> brokerC
>>> (or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to
>>> reach the
>>> broker(C|N)
>>> here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
>>> brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer
>>> message to
>>> brokerC.
>>> here the configuration uses networks.
>>> but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to
>>> brokerB,
>>> but then brokerB could not
>>> transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is
>>> here any
>>> things wrong?
>>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
>>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>>> failover="true">
>>> name = bridgeA
>>> dynamicOnly = false
>>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>> </networkConnector>
>>>
>>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>>> failover="true">
>>> name = bridgeB
>>> dynamicOnly = false
>>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>>> </networkConnector>
>>>
>>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>>> ...
>>>
>>> could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to
>>> brokerC
>>> while it recieved message from brokerA.
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What is it you are trying to achieve?
>>>>
>>>> If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it
>>>> doesn't
>>>> matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
>>>> described here
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>
>>>> If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some
>>>> form
>>>> of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
>>>> lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks James!
>>>>> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have
>>>>> more than
>>>>> 3
>>>>> brokers in use,
>>>>> it will become more and more complex.
>>>>> i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
>>>>> The url is here:
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues
>>>>> +work
>>>>> here I quoted from this artical:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support
>>>>> networks of
>>>>> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so
>>>>> that we can
>>>>> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer
>>>>> sends a
>>>>> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers
>>>>> to reach
>>>>> its final destination."
>>>>>
>>>>> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to
>>>>> work with
>>>>> it.
>>>>> so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples
>>>>> for it.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default
>>>>>> messages will
>>>>>> be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
>>>>>> consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based
>>>>>> forwarding).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
>>>>>> broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by
>>>>>> default
>>>>>> until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
>>>>>> messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and
>>>>>> failover
>>>>>> (rather than store and forward).
>>>>>> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>>> it do works for me.
>>>>>>> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>>>>>>> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
>>>>> AcitveMQ
>>>>>>> broker2.
>>>>>>> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ
>>>>>>> broke3,
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and
>>>>> broker2(and
>>>>>>> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be
>>>>>>> connected .is
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use
>>>>>>> broker3
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4022299
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>> -------
>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
>>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4058503
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by Matthew Xie <an...@163.com>.
Thanks for your reply! James.
I do it as your suggestion but it still doesn't work. the problem still
happened.
so i paste my configure scripts bellow, is there something wrong or mistake?
if i use jmx console tool to inspect the queue, the BrokerB do have a
cousumer from BrokerC,
but why it can't get the message from it? is any one meet the problem before
?
and here still a problem puzzles me.
In brokerA, if I set the value of "networkTTL" for brokerA's
networkConnector is 2, then i send a message to brokerA(brokerA will store
and forward message to brokeB) , now while the brokerB recieving the message
from brokerA, i want it forward the message to BrokerC. so in brokerB , need
i
to set the value of "networkTTL" as 2? so which one will work as i set the
"networkTTL" value both of them?
I do need your help! Thanks!
BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
failover="true" networkTTL="2">
name = bridgeA
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
failover="true" networkTTL="2">
name = bridgeB
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
Thanks!
rajdavies wrote:
>
> Networks have a time to live property - networkTTL = which by default
> is 1 - ie. messages only go one hop. Just increment this number to
> the number of hops you want the message to go through
>
> cheers,
>
> Rob
> On 21 Apr 2006, at 10:09, Matthew Xie wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
>> yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
>> i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but i
>> want to
>> make
>> brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to
>> brokerC
>> (or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to
>> reach the
>> broker(C|N)
>> here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
>> brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer
>> message to
>> brokerC.
>> here the configuration uses networks.
>> but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to
>> brokerB,
>> but then brokerB could not
>> transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is
>> here any
>> things wrong?
>> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
>> failover="true">
>> name = bridgeA
>> dynamicOnly = false
>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
>> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
>> failover="true">
>> name = bridgeB
>> dynamicOnly = false
>> conduitSubscriptions = true
>> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
>> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
>> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
>> </networkConnector>
>>
>> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
>> ...
>>
>> could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to
>> brokerC
>> while it recieved message from brokerA.
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>
>>> What is it you are trying to achieve?
>>>
>>> If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it doesn't
>>> matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
>>> described here
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>
>>> If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some form
>>> of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
>>> lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks James!
>>>> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have
>>>> more than
>>>> 3
>>>> brokers in use,
>>>> it will become more and more complex.
>>>> i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
>>>> The url is here:
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues+work
>>>> here I quoted from this artical:
>>>>
>>>> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support networks of
>>>> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so
>>>> that we can
>>>> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer
>>>> sends a
>>>> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers
>>>> to reach
>>>> its final destination."
>>>>
>>>> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to
>>>> work with
>>>> it.
>>>> so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples for it.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default
>>>>> messages will
>>>>> be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
>>>>> consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based
>>>>> forwarding).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
>>>>> broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by
>>>>> default
>>>>> until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
>>>>> messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and
>>>>> failover
>>>>> (rather than store and forward).
>>>>> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>>> it do works for me.
>>>>>> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>>>>>> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
>>>> AcitveMQ
>>>>>> broker2.
>>>>>> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ
>>>>>> broke3,
>>>>>> while
>>>>>> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and
>>>> broker2(and
>>>>>> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be connected .is
>>>> that
>>>>>> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use
>>>>>> broker3
>>>> to
>>>>>> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>> -------
>>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>>> job--t1484911.html#a4022299
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> James
>>> -------
>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
>> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4058503
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by Rob Davies <ra...@gmail.com>.
Networks have a time to live property - networkTTL = which by default
is 1 - ie. messages only go one hop. Just increment this number to
the number of hops you want the message to go through
cheers,
Rob
On 21 Apr 2006, at 10:09, Matthew Xie wrote:
>
> Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
> yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
> i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but i
> want to
> make
> brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to
> brokerC
> (or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to
> reach the
> broker(C|N)
> here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
> brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer
> message to
> brokerC.
> here the configuration uses networks.
> but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to
> brokerB,
> but then brokerB could not
> transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is
> here any
> things wrong?
> BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
> failover="true">
> name = bridgeA
> dynamicOnly = false
> conduitSubscriptions = true
> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> </networkConnector>
>
> BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
> <networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
> failover="true">
> name = bridgeB
> dynamicOnly = false
> conduitSubscriptions = true
> decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
> <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> <queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
> </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> </networkConnector>
>
> BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
> ...
>
> could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to
> brokerC
> while it recieved message from brokerA.
> Thanks!
>
>
> James.Strachan wrote:
>>
>> What is it you are trying to achieve?
>>
>> If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it doesn't
>> matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
>> described here
>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>
>> If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some form
>> of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
>> lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks James!
>>> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have
>>> more than
>>> 3
>>> brokers in use,
>>> it will become more and more complex.
>>> i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
>>> The url is here:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues+work
>>> here I quoted from this artical:
>>>
>>> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support networks of
>>> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so
>>> that we can
>>> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer
>>> sends a
>>> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers
>>> to reach
>>> its final destination."
>>>
>>> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to
>>> work with
>>> it.
>>> so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples for it.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default
>>>> messages will
>>>> be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
>>>> consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based
>>>> forwarding).
>>>>
>>>> If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
>>>> broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by
>>>> default
>>>> until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>>>>
>>>> BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
>>>> messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and
>>>> failover
>>>> (rather than store and forward).
>>>> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>>>>> it do works for me.
>>>>> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>>>>> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
>>> AcitveMQ
>>>>> broker2.
>>>>> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ
>>>>> broke3,
>>>>> while
>>>>> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and
>>> broker2(and
>>>>> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be connected .is
>>> that
>>>>> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use
>>>>> broker3
>>> to
>>>>> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>
>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>> job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>> -------
>>>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
>>> job--t1484911.html#a4022299
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> James
>> -------
>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
> of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by Matthew Xie <an...@163.com>.
Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but i want to
make
brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to brokerC
(or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to reach the
broker(C|N)
here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer message to
brokerC.
here the configuration uses networks.
but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to brokerB,
but then brokerB could not
transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is here any
things wrong?
BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)" failover="true">
name = bridgeA
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)" failover="true">
name = bridgeB
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
...
could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to brokerC
while it recieved message from brokerA.
Thanks!
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> What is it you are trying to achieve?
>
> If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it doesn't
> matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
> described here
> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>
> If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some form
> of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
> lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
>
>
> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks James!
>> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have more than
>> 3
>> brokers in use,
>> it will become more and more complex.
>> i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
>> The url is here:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues+work
>> here I quoted from this artical:
>>
>> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support networks of
>> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so that we can
>> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer sends a
>> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers to reach
>> its final destination."
>>
>> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to work with
>> it.
>> so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples for it.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> James.Strachan wrote:
>> >
>> > You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default messages will
>> > be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
>> > consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based forwarding).
>> >
>> > If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
>> > broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by default
>> > until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>> >
>> > BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
>> > messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and failover
>> > (rather than store and forward).
>> > http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>> >> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>> >> it do works for me.
>> >> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>> >> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
>> AcitveMQ
>> >> broker2.
>> >> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ broke3,
>> >> while
>> >> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and
>> broker2(and
>> >> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be connected .is
>> that
>> >> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use broker3
>> to
>> >> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
>> >> Thanks.
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > James
>> > -------
>> > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022299
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
What is it you are trying to achieve?
If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it doesn't
matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
described here
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some form
of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks James!
> I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have more than 3
> brokers in use,
> it will become more and more complex.
> i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
> The url is here:
> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues+work
> here I quoted from this artical:
>
> "Each node communicates with a broker and we can support networks of
> brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so that we can
> make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer sends a
> message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers to reach
> its final destination."
>
> but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to work with
> it.
> so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples for it.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> James.Strachan wrote:
> >
> > You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default messages will
> > be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
> > consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based forwarding).
> >
> > If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
> > broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by default
> > until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
> >
> > BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
> > messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and failover
> > (rather than store and forward).
> > http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
> >
> >
> > On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
> >> it do works for me.
> >> but I have a another more complex challenge .
> >> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another AcitveMQ
> >> broker2.
> >> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ broke3,
> >> while
> >> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and broker2(and
> >> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be connected .is that
> >> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use broker3 to
> >> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
> >> Thanks.
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4021349
> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > James
> > -------
> > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022299
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by Matthew Xie <an...@163.com>.
Thanks James!
I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have more than 3
brokers in use,
it will become more and more complex.
i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
The url is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues+work
here I quoted from this artical:
"Each node communicates with a broker and we can support networks of
brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so that we can
make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer sends a
message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers to reach
its final destination."
but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to work with
it.
so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples for it.
Thanks.
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default messages will
> be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
> consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based forwarding).
>
> If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
> broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by default
> until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
>
> BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
> messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and failover
> (rather than store and forward).
> http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
>
>
> On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>>
>> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
>> it do works for me.
>> but I have a another more complex challenge .
>> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another AcitveMQ
>> broker2.
>> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ broke3,
>> while
>> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and broker2(and
>> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be connected .is that
>> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use broker3 to
>> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
>> Thanks.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4021349
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022299
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: could Networks of Brokers feature do this job?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default messages will
be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based forwarding).
If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by default
until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and failover
(rather than store and forward).
http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <an...@163.com> wrote:
>
> First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
> it do works for me.
> but I have a another more complex challenge .
> now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another AcitveMQ
> broker2.
> The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ broke3, while
> here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and broker2(and
> broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be connected .is that
> networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use broker3 to
> transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
> Thanks.
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4021349
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/