You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by "ami.rozen" <am...@peer39.com> on 2010/07/06 09:23:54 UTC
Re: network of brokers question
Hi Clark
Thanks for your answer.
We looked into the client-server architecture but we don't think it is
better for us since we cache the messages in memory and don't write them to
the disk. We rather lose some messages but have a fast handling.
If you think we are wrong please advise.
One other question, we looked into the network of brokers NetworkConnector
Properties configuration and had a hard time to understand what these mean:
1. dynamicOnly
2. conduitSubscriptions
Can they boost our performance ?
Thank you
Ami
cobrien wrote:
>
> Ami,
> Well the nice thing about ActiveMQ is almost everything is configurable.
> From your description I gather you have a requirement for high
> availability.
> If this is the only reason for using multiple brokers then using a
> master-slave
> would be simplify things for you.
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>
> Clark
>
> www.ttmsolutions.com
> ActiveMQ reference guide at
> http://bit.ly/AMQRefGuide
>
>
>
>
> ami.rozen wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>> We are using the activemq brokers in a high scale production environment.
>> To prevent downtime we decided to configure the brokers to work as a
>> network of brokers.
>> There are 2 brokers which use a fixed list of urls to connect to each
>> other.
>> The clients and services use the failover url with a list of the
>> available brokers.
>> Currently we have 2 clients that connect to the brokers and we saw (in
>> the brokers UI) that the messages aren't distributed in an even way.
>> 1) Is this ok ?
>> 2) is there a configuration to distribute the messages evenly between the
>> brokers ?
>> 3) Is there an additional configuration which can bust the performance ?
>> We don't mind losing messages if one of the brokers is down.
>>
>> The configuration we are using in the broker xml file is:
>> <networkConnectors>
>> <networkConnector name="default-dev13"
>> uri="static://(tcp://host_name:61616)"/>
>> </networkConnectors>
>> <!-- The transport connectors ActiveMQ will listen to -->
>> <transportConnectors>
>> <transportConnector name="openwire"
>> uri="tcp://localhost:61616?jms.prefetchPolicy.queuePrefetch=100&jms.useAsyncSend=true&wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration=0"/>
>> <transportConnector name="ssl" uri="ssl://localhost:61617"/>
>> <transportConnector name="stomp"
>> uri="stomp://localhost:61613"/>
>> <transportConnector name="xmpp"
>> uri="xmpp://localhost:61222"/>
>> </transportConnectors>
>> Thank you
>> Ami
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/network-of-brokers-question-tp29020595p29082649.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: network of brokers question
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
Hi Ami,
when you say they are not even, what the exact ratio is?
BTW. regarding performance, I see that you used smaller value for the
prefetch size. Generally higher values have better performances. Also,
check out conf/activemq-throughput.xml for some tips regarding
increasing the throughput.
Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb
Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:23 AM, ami.rozen <am...@peer39.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Clark
>
> Thanks for your answer.
> We looked into the client-server architecture but we don't think it is
> better for us since we cache the messages in memory and don't write them to
> the disk. We rather lose some messages but have a fast handling.
> If you think we are wrong please advise.
> One other question, we looked into the network of brokers NetworkConnector
> Properties configuration and had a hard time to understand what these mean:
> 1. dynamicOnly
> 2. conduitSubscriptions
> Can they boost our performance ?
>
> Thank you
> Ami
>
>
> cobrien wrote:
>>
>> Ami,
>> Well the nice thing about ActiveMQ is almost everything is configurable.
>> From your description I gather you have a requirement for high
>> availability.
>> If this is the only reason for using multiple brokers then using a
>> master-slave
>> would be simplify things for you.
>>
>> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>>
>> Clark
>>
>> www.ttmsolutions.com
>> ActiveMQ reference guide at
>> http://bit.ly/AMQRefGuide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ami.rozen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> We are using the activemq brokers in a high scale production environment.
>>> To prevent downtime we decided to configure the brokers to work as a
>>> network of brokers.
>>> There are 2 brokers which use a fixed list of urls to connect to each
>>> other.
>>> The clients and services use the failover url with a list of the
>>> available brokers.
>>> Currently we have 2 clients that connect to the brokers and we saw (in
>>> the brokers UI) that the messages aren't distributed in an even way.
>>> 1) Is this ok ?
>>> 2) is there a configuration to distribute the messages evenly between the
>>> brokers ?
>>> 3) Is there an additional configuration which can bust the performance ?
>>> We don't mind losing messages if one of the brokers is down.
>>>
>>> The configuration we are using in the broker xml file is:
>>> <networkConnectors>
>>> <networkConnector name="default-dev13"
>>> uri="static://(tcp://host_name:61616)"/>
>>> </networkConnectors>
>>> <!-- The transport connectors ActiveMQ will listen to -->
>>> <transportConnectors>
>>> <transportConnector name="openwire"
>>> uri="tcp://localhost:61616?jms.prefetchPolicy.queuePrefetch=100&jms.useAsyncSend=true&wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration=0"/>
>>> <transportConnector name="ssl" uri="ssl://localhost:61617"/>
>>> <transportConnector name="stomp"
>>> uri="stomp://localhost:61613"/>
>>> <transportConnector name="xmpp"
>>> uri="xmpp://localhost:61222"/>
>>> </transportConnectors>
>>> Thank you
>>> Ami
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/network-of-brokers-question-tp29020595p29082649.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>