You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Ning Li <Ni...@businessobjects.com> on 2006/08/18 19:24:41 UTC
Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Hi,
I have a question about JDBC Master/Slave in 4.1.
In Active 4.0, each broker has its own DB, the Slave has to duplicate
the states of the Master in order to take over, how about the JDBC
Master/Slave in 4.1? Does the Slave still duplicate the states of the
Master, or it just get all the information from DB when it becomes the
Master, as the brokers share the same DB, all the state can be recovered
from the DB except some non-persistent messages will get lost.
Thanks.
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by chanaka <ch...@cboe.com>.
thanks much
Chanaka
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> On 8/22/06, chanaka <ch...@cboe.com> wrote:
>>
>> mm, I only see the xml configuration for "JDBC Master Slave" case. Could
>> you
>> pls point me to the page you're talking about ?
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/masterslave.html
> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/jdbc-master-slave.html
>
> The shared file system master/slave is just a case of setting the
> dataDirectory to a shared directory on the file system so there's no
> actual XML example yet. I've just added one to that page
>
> http://activemq.org/site/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Master-Slave-topology-in-4.1-tf2128538.html#a5929529
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 8/22/06, chanaka <ch...@cboe.com> wrote:
>
> mm, I only see the xml configuration for "JDBC Master Slave" case. Could you
> pls point me to the page you're talking about ?
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/masterslave.html
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/jdbc-master-slave.html
The shared file system master/slave is just a case of setting the
dataDirectory to a shared directory on the file system so there's no
actual XML example yet. I've just added one to that page
http://activemq.org/site/shared-file-system-master-slave.html
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by chanaka <ch...@cboe.com>.
mm, I only see the xml configuration for "JDBC Master Slave" case. Could you
pls point me to the page you're talking about ?
Thanks.
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> On 8/22/06, chanaka <ch...@cboe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What's the mechanism used to select one versus the other, say "pure
>> master
>> slave" vs "shared file system master slave", assuming there's a shared
>> file
>> system.
>
> See the XML configuration examples on each page.
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Master-Slave-topology-in-4.1-tf2128538.html#a5928929
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 8/22/06, chanaka <ch...@cboe.com> wrote:
>
>
> What's the mechanism used to select one versus the other, say "pure master
> slave" vs "shared file system master slave", assuming there's a shared file
> system.
See the XML configuration examples on each page.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by chanaka <ch...@cboe.com>.
What's the mechanism used to select one versus the other, say "pure master
slave" vs "shared file system master slave", assuming there's a shared file
system.
Thanks.
Chanaka
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> I've updated this page to make it more obvious the difference. I"ve
> referred to the non-shared-filesystem/jdbc as 'Pure Master Slave' and
> provided a table comparing the different approaches to make it a
> little less confusing...
>
> http://www.activemq.com/site/masterslave.html
>
> On 8/21/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/21/06, Ning Li <Ni...@businessobjects.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the reply.
>> >
>> > In this link http://www.activemq.com/site/masterslave.html, it
>> mentioned
>> > that "in ActiveMQ 4.1 or later you can use a <masterconnector> ...",
>> but
>> > if slave won't replicate master's state, I guess that config element is
>> > not needed, right?
>>
>> That element is not used for JDBC master/slave.
>>
>> Pure Master/Slave is different to JDBC Master/Slave and Shared File
>> System Master/Slave. <masterConnector> only applies to pure
>> Master/Slave
>>
>> --
>>
>> James
>> -------
>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Master-Slave-topology-in-4.1-tf2128538.html#a5928633
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
I've updated this page to make it more obvious the difference. I"ve
referred to the non-shared-filesystem/jdbc as 'Pure Master Slave' and
provided a table comparing the different approaches to make it a
little less confusing...
http://www.activemq.com/site/masterslave.html
On 8/21/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/06, Ning Li <Ni...@businessobjects.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > In this link http://www.activemq.com/site/masterslave.html, it mentioned
> > that "in ActiveMQ 4.1 or later you can use a <masterconnector> ...", but
> > if slave won't replicate master's state, I guess that config element is
> > not needed, right?
>
> That element is not used for JDBC master/slave.
>
> Pure Master/Slave is different to JDBC Master/Slave and Shared File
> System Master/Slave. <masterConnector> only applies to pure
> Master/Slave
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/06, Ning Li <Ni...@businessobjects.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> In this link http://www.activemq.com/site/masterslave.html, it mentioned
> that "in ActiveMQ 4.1 or later you can use a <masterconnector> ...", but
> if slave won't replicate master's state, I guess that config element is
> not needed, right?
That element is not used for JDBC master/slave.
Pure Master/Slave is different to JDBC Master/Slave and Shared File
System Master/Slave. <masterConnector> only applies to pure
Master/Slave
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
RE: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by Ning Li <Ni...@businessobjects.com>.
Thanks for the reply.
In this link http://www.activemq.com/site/masterslave.html, it mentioned
that "in ActiveMQ 4.1 or later you can use a <masterconnector> ...", but
if slave won't replicate master's state, I guess that config element is
not needed, right?
Ning
-----Original Message-----
From: James Strachan [mailto:james.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:30 AM
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
On 8/18/06, Ning Li <Ni...@businessobjects.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about JDBC Master/Slave in 4.1.
>
> In Active 4.0, each broker has its own DB, the Slave has to duplicate
> the states of the Master in order to take over, how about the JDBC
> Master/Slave in 4.1? Does the Slave still duplicate the states of the
> Master, or it just get all the information from DB when it becomes the
> Master, as the brokers share the same DB, all the state can be
recovered
> from the DB except some non-persistent messages will get lost.
The latter - the slave just grabs and locks the database that the
master is using.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Master/Slave topology in 4.1
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 8/18/06, Ning Li <Ni...@businessobjects.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about JDBC Master/Slave in 4.1.
>
> In Active 4.0, each broker has its own DB, the Slave has to duplicate
> the states of the Master in order to take over, how about the JDBC
> Master/Slave in 4.1? Does the Slave still duplicate the states of the
> Master, or it just get all the information from DB when it becomes the
> Master, as the brokers share the same DB, all the state can be recovered
> from the DB except some non-persistent messages will get lost.
The latter - the slave just grabs and locks the database that the
master is using.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/