You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> on 2010/04/29 03:51:26 UTC
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB
for Message Persistency only?
Thanks lot for your reply Gary,
We have also looked at the 'jdbc statemetns', unfortunately as per DB2, any
statement on the lock table - could cause error, so jdbc statements may not
help (Still we are investigating though)
So we have to use either specific data source for the locking or we may end
up writing our own file system based locker class. If so, we will contribute
it.
We are also looking at the 'Shared file System Master Slave' approach -
which uses the Journal + datasource using <journaledJDBC ... >. There it
uses the File system for locking and permanent DB for persistency.
But, as per Journal architecture, it may not store all the messages in the
DB (it only persists the left over messages at checkpoint point). But we
want ALL the messages received by the broker should persist in the
permanent DB.
So is there any way to force the Journal to persist all messages in the
permanent DB (probably by ignoring the check point) or any other approach?
Thank you,
Krishna.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28395879.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB
for Message Persistency only?
Posted by KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com>.
Thanks Gary
That clears all our confusions.
ok. I understand the confusion now. I have fixed the
incorrect configuration example in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/Shared+File+System+Master+Slave
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28416983.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB for
Message Persistency only?
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
ok. I understand the confusion now. I have fixed the
incorrect configuration example in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/Shared+File+System+Master+Slave
On 30 April 2010 03:57, KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> also ActiveMQ says;
>
> The following example shows how to configure the broker for Shared File
> System Master Slave where /sharedFileSystem is some directory on a shared
> file system
>
> <persistenceAdapter>
> <journaledJDBC dataDirectory="/sharedFileSystem/broker"/>
> </persistenceAdapter>
>
> So the "Shared file system master slave" approach uses the common Journal +
> common DB (Here derby datasource by default) for ALL (Master & Slave)
> brokers. Is not it?
>
> Could you please correct us if we misunderstood any?
>
> Thanks lot.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28408057.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
http://blog.garytully.com
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB
for Message Persistency only?
Posted by KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com>.
also ActiveMQ says;
The following example shows how to configure the broker for Shared File
System Master Slave where /sharedFileSystem is some directory on a shared
file system
<persistenceAdapter>
<journaledJDBC dataDirectory="/sharedFileSystem/broker"/>
</persistenceAdapter>
So the "Shared file system master slave" approach uses the common Journal +
common DB (Here derby datasource by default) for ALL (Master & Slave)
brokers. Is not it?
Could you please correct us if we misunderstood any?
Thanks lot.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28408057.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB
for Message Persistency only?
Posted by KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com>.
You mean, if we use the same Shared file system for all brokers and common
DB (following config for all brokers)
<persistenceAdapter>
<journaledJDBC dataDirectory="/sharedFileSystem/broker"
dataSource="#db2l-ds" />
</persistenceAdapter>
then the master and slave(s) use the same sharedFileSystem for Journal. Is
it correct?
If so, is the above config fine for Failover in clustering environment or
Do you still say this is NOT appropriate for Failover.
THANK YOU.
Gary Tully wrote:
>
> Shared file system master slave is fine.
> The problem is with "journal + jdbc" as the journal part of that is local
> to
> a broker instance.
>
>
> On 29 April 2010 17:02, KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Activemq recommends 'Shared file System Master Slave' as one of the HA
>> approaches for failover in clustering environment.
>>
>> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>>
>>
>> But you say it is not appropriate. Do you see any cons of it?
>>
>> Thank you for replies.
>>
>>
>> Gary Tully wrote:
>> >
>> > For fail over, the batching nature of the journal is not appropriate,
>> you
>> > need to send messages directly to the store, either jdbc or file based.
>> >
>> > On 29 April 2010 02:51, KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks lot for your reply Gary,
>> >>
>> >> We have also looked at the 'jdbc statemetns', unfortunately as per
>> DB2,
>> >> any
>> >> statement on the lock table - could cause error, so jdbc statements
>> may
>> >> not
>> >> help (Still we are investigating though)
>> >>
>> >> So we have to use either specific data source for the locking or we
>> may
>> >> end
>> >> up writing our own file system based locker class. If so, we will
>> >> contribute
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> We are also looking at the 'Shared file System Master Slave' approach
>> -
>> >> which uses the Journal + datasource using <journaledJDBC ... >. There
>> it
>> >> uses the File system for locking and permanent DB for persistency.
>> >>
>> >> But, as per Journal architecture, it may not store all the messages in
>> >> the
>> >> DB (it only persists the left over messages at checkpoint point). But
>> we
>> >> want ALL the messages received by the broker should persist in the
>> >> permanent DB.
>> >>
>> >> So is there any way to force the Journal to persist all messages in
>> the
>> >> permanent DB (probably by ignoring the check point) or any other
>> >> approach?
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >> Krishna.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28395879.html
>> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://blog.garytully.com
>> >
>> > Open Source Integration
>> > http://fusesource.com
>> >
>> >
>> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28402548.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://blog.garytully.com
>
> Open Source Integration
> http://fusesource.com
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28403590.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB for
Message Persistency only?
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
Shared file system master slave is fine.
The problem is with "journal + jdbc" as the journal part of that is local to
a broker instance.
On 29 April 2010 17:02, KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Activemq recommends 'Shared file System Master Slave' as one of the HA
> approaches for failover in clustering environment.
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>
>
> But you say it is not appropriate. Do you see any cons of it?
>
> Thank you for replies.
>
>
> Gary Tully wrote:
> >
> > For fail over, the batching nature of the journal is not appropriate, you
> > need to send messages directly to the store, either jdbc or file based.
> >
> > On 29 April 2010 02:51, KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks lot for your reply Gary,
> >>
> >> We have also looked at the 'jdbc statemetns', unfortunately as per DB2,
> >> any
> >> statement on the lock table - could cause error, so jdbc statements may
> >> not
> >> help (Still we are investigating though)
> >>
> >> So we have to use either specific data source for the locking or we may
> >> end
> >> up writing our own file system based locker class. If so, we will
> >> contribute
> >> it.
> >>
> >> We are also looking at the 'Shared file System Master Slave' approach -
> >> which uses the Journal + datasource using <journaledJDBC ... >. There
> it
> >> uses the File system for locking and permanent DB for persistency.
> >>
> >> But, as per Journal architecture, it may not store all the messages in
> >> the
> >> DB (it only persists the left over messages at checkpoint point). But we
> >> want ALL the messages received by the broker should persist in the
> >> permanent DB.
> >>
> >> So is there any way to force the Journal to persist all messages in the
> >> permanent DB (probably by ignoring the check point) or any other
> >> approach?
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Krishna.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28395879.html
> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://blog.garytully.com
> >
> > Open Source Integration
> > http://fusesource.com
> >
> >
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28402548.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
http://blog.garytully.com
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB
for Message Persistency only?
Posted by KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com>.
Activemq recommends 'Shared file System Master Slave' as one of the HA
approaches for failover in clustering environment.
http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
But you say it is not appropriate. Do you see any cons of it?
Thank you for replies.
Gary Tully wrote:
>
> For fail over, the batching nature of the journal is not appropriate, you
> need to send messages directly to the store, either jdbc or file based.
>
> On 29 April 2010 02:51, KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks lot for your reply Gary,
>>
>> We have also looked at the 'jdbc statemetns', unfortunately as per DB2,
>> any
>> statement on the lock table - could cause error, so jdbc statements may
>> not
>> help (Still we are investigating though)
>>
>> So we have to use either specific data source for the locking or we may
>> end
>> up writing our own file system based locker class. If so, we will
>> contribute
>> it.
>>
>> We are also looking at the 'Shared file System Master Slave' approach -
>> which uses the Journal + datasource using <journaledJDBC ... >. There it
>> uses the File system for locking and permanent DB for persistency.
>>
>> But, as per Journal architecture, it may not store all the messages in
>> the
>> DB (it only persists the left over messages at checkpoint point). But we
>> want ALL the messages received by the broker should persist in the
>> permanent DB.
>>
>> So is there any way to force the Journal to persist all messages in the
>> permanent DB (probably by ignoring the check point) or any other
>> approach?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Krishna.
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28395879.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://blog.garytully.com
>
> Open Source Integration
> http://fusesource.com
>
>
http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28402548.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: How to use the File System for locking purpose and use the DB for
Message Persistency only?
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
For fail over, the batching nature of the journal is not appropriate, you
need to send messages directly to the store, either jdbc or file based.
On 29 April 2010 02:51, KRISHNAS <kr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks lot for your reply Gary,
>
> We have also looked at the 'jdbc statemetns', unfortunately as per DB2, any
> statement on the lock table - could cause error, so jdbc statements may not
> help (Still we are investigating though)
>
> So we have to use either specific data source for the locking or we may end
> up writing our own file system based locker class. If so, we will
> contribute
> it.
>
> We are also looking at the 'Shared file System Master Slave' approach -
> which uses the Journal + datasource using <journaledJDBC ... >. There it
> uses the File system for locking and permanent DB for persistency.
>
> But, as per Journal architecture, it may not store all the messages in the
> DB (it only persists the left over messages at checkpoint point). But we
> want ALL the messages received by the broker should persist in the
> permanent DB.
>
> So is there any way to force the Journal to persist all messages in the
> permanent DB (probably by ignoring the check point) or any other approach?
>
> Thank you,
> Krishna.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-File-System-for-locking-purpose-and-use-the-DB-for-Message-Persistency-only--tp28391833p28395879.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
http://blog.garytully.com
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com