You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> on 2012/11/08 15:02:05 UTC
Dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
importantly very reliable. So I think we clean house a remove this
'feature'.
--
**
*Hiram Chirino*
*Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
*hchirino@redhat.com <hc...@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com*
*skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
*
*blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
Re: Dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 09:02 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
> Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
> I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
> it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
> importantly very reliable. So I think we clean house a remove this
> 'feature'.
>
>
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: Dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
Posted by Jim Gomes <e....@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree, it has not had much love over the past few releases and the
> implementation over a single channel will never scale, + there is the
> recovery problem.
>
> The theory is great though, no infrastructure required. We can maybe
> revisit this "feature" with a replicated memory store at some stage.
>
> +1
>
> It does keep popping up on the user list, so some folks will be
> surprised, but it is better that they go down the shared storage road
> from the start.
>
> On 8 November 2012 14:02, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
> > Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation
> yet
> > I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
> > it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
> > importantly very reliable. So I think we clean house a remove this
> > 'feature'.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > **
> >
> > *Hiram Chirino*
> >
> > *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
> >
> > *hchirino@redhat.com <hc...@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> *
> >
> > *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<
> http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
> > *
> >
> > *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com
>
Re: Dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
I agree, it has not had much love over the past few releases and the
implementation over a single channel will never scale, + there is the
recovery problem.
The theory is great though, no infrastructure required. We can maybe
revisit this "feature" with a replicated memory store at some stage.
+1
It does keep popping up on the user list, so some folks will be
surprised, but it is better that they go down the shared storage road
from the start.
On 8 November 2012 14:02, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
> Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
> I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
> it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
> importantly very reliable. So I think we clean house a remove this
> 'feature'.
>
>
> --
>
> **
>
> *Hiram Chirino*
>
> *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
>
> *hchirino@redhat.com <hc...@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com*
>
> *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
> *
>
> *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: Dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
Posted by Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>.
+1
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
dbosanac@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
>> Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
>> I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
>> it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
>> importantly very reliable. So I think we clean house a remove this
>> 'feature'.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Hiram Chirino*
>>
>> *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
>>
>> *hchirino@redhat.com <hc...@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com*
>>
>> *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
>> *
>>
>> *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> Email: cibsen@redhat.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus
> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
Re: Dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
> Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet
> I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
> it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
> importantly very reliable. So I think we clean house a remove this
> 'feature'.
>
>
> --
>
> **
>
> *Hiram Chirino*
>
> *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
>
> *hchirino@redhat.com <hc...@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com*
>
> *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
> *
>
> *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Email: cibsen@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen