You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by mi...@me.com.INVALID on 2019/11/01 08:25:36 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements
Do you have a branch with it at all even if not PR ready?
Get Outlook for Android
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
As an update I have a decent prototype now for downstream configurations
that I am still polishing and working on tests. I'm only in the office a
couple days this week so I will probably have a PR ready for the following
week.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary,
>
> That sounds like a good idea as I think you're right that AMQP could help
> solve some of the issues with flow control. Plus the broker supports
> native AMQP now so performance would be good. In regards to duplex that is
> a good point I forgot about since in general I setup the same credentials
> on both brokers of a bridge (plus I just use TLS so all brokers have certs)
> but re-using the same connection certainly does allow for authentication to
> be a lot easier. So I think the duplex case probably does (or at least
> should have the ability) to share the same connection like on 5.x. I
> figure ultimately we could have lots of bridge types...maybe this new AMQP
> bridge, the existing federated address/queue stuff, and there is still
> clustering so users will have options to decide what is best for their use
> case.
>
> For now, to make things simple, I've decided just to start work on a PR to
> allow configuring of a downstream broker with the existing setup (not going
> with duplex) as that should be a good start. I'm just going to send the
> config info to the remote broker and then that broker will establish an
> upstream link based on the config. After that the next stuff I want to
> target is to add metrics and also to support divert bindings for driving
> demand. (equivalent to the 5.x virtual destination demand feature I added
> in 5.13.x)
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:29 AM Gary Tully wrote:
>
>> Hi Christopher,
>> this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to see
>> if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only moving
>> messages that are needed.
>> The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the
>> bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rather than have all
>> messages move between brokers when local consumers are slow, only move
>> to satisfy remote/upstream credit and react to it dynamically, which
>> is a fundamental part of AMQP flow control.
>>
>> i need to pull together a POC of this to verify how easy/hard it will
>> be to aggregate credit demand etc and have outbound AMQP calls, but I
>> think it can be really good and fix an age old problem with the 5.x
>> bridge.
>>
>> it would also help with the duplex part because of the symmetric nature
>> of AMQP.
>>
>> on the duplex and configuration command, authentication was one
>> problem in 5.x, in that the same users needed to exist on all brokers
>> b/c the user/pass etc was part of the bridge config, I think the
>> "reuse of the same connection" may be important to avoid that need. It
>> will typically need to be TLS and maybe cert based authentication so
>> maybe SASL would also come into play.
>>
>> The duplex case in my mind was always about hub/spoke where the hub
>> did not need to be aware of the spokes configuration. Each spoke could
>> initiate a duplex/two way bridge to the hub and not require any
>> additional fire wall ports. To my mind, propagation of config and
>> reuse of the connection was always related.
>> But for sure small steps. And maybe AMQP can help!
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:34, Christopher Shannon
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream
>> portion
>> > first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection which is
>> what
>> > happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote broker
>> gets
>> > a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
>> >
>> > So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and just
>> > automatically create two connections. So for example we could define a
>> > duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the covers
>> the
>> > federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection
>> > automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance anyways
>> > and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of the
>> > other. We could also support both options, etc.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually quite
>> > > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells all the
>> > > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes sense to
>> me as a
>> > > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the
>> "duplex"
>> > > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and the
>> "duplex"
>> > > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always
>> conceived
>> > > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge to be
>> able to
>> > > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Justin
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I try and
>> > > migrate
>> > > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x does
>> > > bridging
>> > > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what I
>> need than
>> > > > clustering.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements that
>> will be
>> > > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you can
>> only
>> > > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x
>> configures a
>> > > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to go
>> ahead and
>> > > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both downstream
>> brokers
>> > > and
>> > > > hopefully duplex as well.
>> > > >
>> > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a
>> > > configuration
>> > > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is made
>> to the
>> > > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the info
>> for
>> > > the
>> > > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this
>> config,
>> > > parse
>> > > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that information
>> back to
>> > > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a
>> downstream
>> > > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the bridge
>> to
>> > > > simplify things.
>> > > >
>> > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to get
>> some
>> > > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a
>> downstream
>> > > > broker?
>> > > >
>> > >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Initial PR has been created:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2892
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:20 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look and yes I can see your comments so I will respond
> on the branch.
>
> The XML configuration will absolutely be updated, I just hadn't gotten
> around to it but adding the new XML config + documentation will be
> necessary for the final PR.
>
> I'm still tweaking a few things and polishing some stuff but I should
> submit the PR pretty soon. I have a couple more things in the works as
> follow on PRs including adding plugin support/hooks for the federation
> lifecycle as well as adding support for generating demand based on other
> types of bindings being created such as divert bindings.
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:13 AM <mi...@me.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In general looks good.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ive tried adding comments inline on the commit hopefully you see them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Could an xml config example be added like there was for the upstream
>> bits. (I could have missed it)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks good though great stuff!
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Get Outlook for Android
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:52 AM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I pushed up the branch I've been working on here:
>>
>> https://github.com/cshannon/activemq-artemis/tree/downstreamFederationPrototype
>>
>> So you can take a look and see what you think. There are updated tests
>> implemented in both FederatedQueueTest and FederatedAddressTest classes if
>> you want to see it in action.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:13 PM Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I will push up my branch Monday to github so you can take a look.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:36 AM
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do you have a branch with it at all even if not PR ready?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Get Outlook for Android
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
>> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As an update I have a decent prototype now for downstream
>> configurations
>> >> that I am still polishing and working on tests. I'm only in the office
>> a
>> >> couple days this week so I will probably have a PR ready for the
>> following
>> >> week.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Gary,
>> >> >
>> >> > That sounds like a good idea as I think you're right that AMQP could
>> >> help
>> >> > solve some of the issues with flow control. Plus the broker supports
>> >> > native AMQP now so performance would be good. In regards to duplex
>> >> that is
>> >> > a good point I forgot about since in general I setup the same
>> >> credentials
>> >> > on both brokers of a bridge (plus I just use TLS so all brokers have
>> >> certs)
>> >> > but re-using the same connection certainly does allow for
>> >> authentication to
>> >> > be a lot easier. So I think the duplex case probably does (or at
>> least
>> >> > should have the ability) to share the same connection like on 5.x. I
>> >> > figure ultimately we could have lots of bridge types...maybe this new
>> >> AMQP
>> >> > bridge, the existing federated address/queue stuff, and there is
>> still
>> >> > clustering so users will have options to decide what is best for
>> their
>> >> use
>> >> > case.
>> >> >
>> >> > For now, to make things simple, I've decided just to start work on a
>> PR
>> >> to
>> >> > allow configuring of a downstream broker with the existing setup (not
>> >> going
>> >> > with duplex) as that should be a good start. I'm just going to send
>> the
>> >> > config info to the remote broker and then that broker will establish
>> an
>> >> > upstream link based on the config. After that the next stuff I want
>> to
>> >> > target is to add metrics and also to support divert bindings for
>> driving
>> >> > demand. (equivalent to the 5.x virtual destination demand feature I
>> >> added
>> >> > in 5.13.x)
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:29 AM Gary Tully wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Christopher,
>> >> >> this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to
>> see
>> >> >> if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only
>> moving
>> >> >> messages that are needed.
>> >> >> The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the
>> >> >> bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rather than have all
>> >> >> messages move between brokers when local consumers are slow, only
>> move
>> >> >> to satisfy remote/upstream credit and react to it dynamically, which
>> >> >> is a fundamental part of AMQP flow control.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i need to pull together a POC of this to verify how easy/hard it
>> will
>> >> >> be to aggregate credit demand etc and have outbound AMQP calls, but
>> I
>> >> >> think it can be really good and fix an age old problem with the 5.x
>> >> >> bridge.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> it would also help with the duplex part because of the symmetric
>> nature
>> >> >> of AMQP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> on the duplex and configuration command, authentication was one
>> >> >> problem in 5.x, in that the same users needed to exist on all
>> brokers
>> >> >> b/c the user/pass etc was part of the bridge config, I think the
>> >> >> "reuse of the same connection" may be important to avoid that need.
>> It
>> >> >> will typically need to be TLS and maybe cert based authentication so
>> >> >> maybe SASL would also come into play.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The duplex case in my mind was always about hub/spoke where the hub
>> >> >> did not need to be aware of the spokes configuration. Each spoke
>> could
>> >> >> initiate a duplex/two way bridge to the hub and not require any
>> >> >> additional fire wall ports. To my mind, propagation of config and
>> >> >> reuse of the connection was always related.
>> >> >> But for sure small steps. And maybe AMQP can help!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:34, Christopher Shannon
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream
>> >> >> portion
>> >> >> > first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection
>> which is
>> >> >> what
>> >> >> > happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote
>> broker
>> >> >> gets
>> >> >> > a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and
>> just
>> >> >> > automatically create two connections. So for example we could
>> >> define a
>> >> >> > duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the
>> >> covers
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection
>> >> >> > automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance
>> >> anyways
>> >> >> > and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of
>> >> the
>> >> >> > other. We could also support both options, etc.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually
>> >> quite
>> >> >> > > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells
>> all
>> >> the
>> >> >> > > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes
>> sense to
>> >> >> me as a
>> >> >> > > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the
>> >> >> "duplex"
>> >> >> > > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and
>> the
>> >> >> "duplex"
>> >> >> > > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always
>> >> >> conceived
>> >> >> > > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge
>> to be
>> >> >> able to
>> >> >> > > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Justin
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >> >> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I
>> try
>> >> and
>> >> >> > > migrate
>> >> >> > > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x
>> >> does
>> >> >> > > bridging
>> >> >> > > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what
>> I
>> >> >> need than
>> >> >> > > > clustering.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements
>> that
>> >> >> will be
>> >> >> > > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you
>> >> can
>> >> >> only
>> >> >> > > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x
>> >> >> configures a
>> >> >> > > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to
>> go
>> >> >> ahead and
>> >> >> > > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both
>> downstream
>> >> >> brokers
>> >> >> > > and
>> >> >> > > > hopefully duplex as well.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a
>> >> >> > > configuration
>> >> >> > > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is
>> made
>> >> >> to the
>> >> >> > > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the
>> >> info
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> > > the
>> >> >> > > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this
>> >> >> config,
>> >> >> > > parse
>> >> >> > > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that
>> information
>> >> >> back to
>> >> >> > > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a
>> >> >> downstream
>> >> >> > > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the
>> >> bridge
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> > > > simplify things.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to
>> >> get
>> >> >> some
>> >> >> > > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on
>> it.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a
>> >> >> downstream
>> >> >> > > > broker?
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for taking a look and yes I can see your comments so I will respond
on the branch.
The XML configuration will absolutely be updated, I just hadn't gotten
around to it but adding the new XML config + documentation will be
necessary for the final PR.
I'm still tweaking a few things and polishing some stuff but I should
submit the PR pretty soon. I have a couple more things in the works as
follow on PRs including adding plugin support/hooks for the federation
lifecycle as well as adding support for generating demand based on other
types of bindings being created such as divert bindings.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:13 AM <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
>
>
>
> In general looks good.
>
>
>
>
> Ive tried adding comments inline on the commit hopefully you see them.
>
>
>
>
> Could an xml config example be added like there was for the upstream bits.
> (I could have missed it)
>
>
>
>
> Looks good though great stuff!
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:52 AM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> I pushed up the branch I've been working on here:
>
> https://github.com/cshannon/activemq-artemis/tree/downstreamFederationPrototype
>
> So you can take a look and see what you think. There are updated tests
> implemented in both FederatedQueueTest and FederatedAddressTest classes if
> you want to see it in action.
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:13 PM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I will push up my branch Monday to github so you can take a look.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:36 AM
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Do you have a branch with it at all even if not PR ready?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Get Outlook for Android
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As an update I have a decent prototype now for downstream configurations
> >> that I am still polishing and working on tests. I'm only in the office a
> >> couple days this week so I will probably have a PR ready for the
> following
> >> week.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Gary,
> >> >
> >> > That sounds like a good idea as I think you're right that AMQP could
> >> help
> >> > solve some of the issues with flow control. Plus the broker supports
> >> > native AMQP now so performance would be good. In regards to duplex
> >> that is
> >> > a good point I forgot about since in general I setup the same
> >> credentials
> >> > on both brokers of a bridge (plus I just use TLS so all brokers have
> >> certs)
> >> > but re-using the same connection certainly does allow for
> >> authentication to
> >> > be a lot easier. So I think the duplex case probably does (or at
> least
> >> > should have the ability) to share the same connection like on 5.x. I
> >> > figure ultimately we could have lots of bridge types...maybe this new
> >> AMQP
> >> > bridge, the existing federated address/queue stuff, and there is still
> >> > clustering so users will have options to decide what is best for their
> >> use
> >> > case.
> >> >
> >> > For now, to make things simple, I've decided just to start work on a
> PR
> >> to
> >> > allow configuring of a downstream broker with the existing setup (not
> >> going
> >> > with duplex) as that should be a good start. I'm just going to send
> the
> >> > config info to the remote broker and then that broker will establish
> an
> >> > upstream link based on the config. After that the next stuff I want
> to
> >> > target is to add metrics and also to support divert bindings for
> driving
> >> > demand. (equivalent to the 5.x virtual destination demand feature I
> >> added
> >> > in 5.13.x)
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:29 AM Gary Tully wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Christopher,
> >> >> this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to
> see
> >> >> if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only
> moving
> >> >> messages that are needed.
> >> >> The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the
> >> >> bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rather than have all
> >> >> messages move between brokers when local consumers are slow, only
> move
> >> >> to satisfy remote/upstream credit and react to it dynamically, which
> >> >> is a fundamental part of AMQP flow control.
> >> >>
> >> >> i need to pull together a POC of this to verify how easy/hard it will
> >> >> be to aggregate credit demand etc and have outbound AMQP calls, but I
> >> >> think it can be really good and fix an age old problem with the 5.x
> >> >> bridge.
> >> >>
> >> >> it would also help with the duplex part because of the symmetric
> nature
> >> >> of AMQP.
> >> >>
> >> >> on the duplex and configuration command, authentication was one
> >> >> problem in 5.x, in that the same users needed to exist on all brokers
> >> >> b/c the user/pass etc was part of the bridge config, I think the
> >> >> "reuse of the same connection" may be important to avoid that need.
> It
> >> >> will typically need to be TLS and maybe cert based authentication so
> >> >> maybe SASL would also come into play.
> >> >>
> >> >> The duplex case in my mind was always about hub/spoke where the hub
> >> >> did not need to be aware of the spokes configuration. Each spoke
> could
> >> >> initiate a duplex/two way bridge to the hub and not require any
> >> >> additional fire wall ports. To my mind, propagation of config and
> >> >> reuse of the connection was always related.
> >> >> But for sure small steps. And maybe AMQP can help!
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:34, Christopher Shannon
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream
> >> >> portion
> >> >> > first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection which
> is
> >> >> what
> >> >> > happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote
> broker
> >> >> gets
> >> >> > a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and
> just
> >> >> > automatically create two connections. So for example we could
> >> define a
> >> >> > duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the
> >> covers
> >> >> the
> >> >> > federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection
> >> >> > automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance
> >> anyways
> >> >> > and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of
> >> the
> >> >> > other. We could also support both options, etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually
> >> quite
> >> >> > > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells
> all
> >> the
> >> >> > > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes sense
> to
> >> >> me as a
> >> >> > > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the
> >> >> "duplex"
> >> >> > > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and
> the
> >> >> "duplex"
> >> >> > > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always
> >> >> conceived
> >> >> > > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge to
> be
> >> >> able to
> >> >> > > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Justin
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >> >> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I try
> >> and
> >> >> > > migrate
> >> >> > > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x
> >> does
> >> >> > > bridging
> >> >> > > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what I
> >> >> need than
> >> >> > > > clustering.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements
> that
> >> >> will be
> >> >> > > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you
> >> can
> >> >> only
> >> >> > > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x
> >> >> configures a
> >> >> > > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to go
> >> >> ahead and
> >> >> > > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both downstream
> >> >> brokers
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > > hopefully duplex as well.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a
> >> >> > > configuration
> >> >> > > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is
> made
> >> >> to the
> >> >> > > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the
> >> info
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this
> >> >> config,
> >> >> > > parse
> >> >> > > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that
> information
> >> >> back to
> >> >> > > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a
> >> >> downstream
> >> >> > > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the
> >> bridge
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > > simplify things.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to
> >> get
> >> >> some
> >> >> > > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on
> it.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a
> >> >> downstream
> >> >> > > > broker?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements
Posted by mi...@me.com.INVALID.
Hi Chris
In general looks good.
Ive tried adding comments inline on the commit hopefully you see them.
Could an xml config example be added like there was for the upstream bits. (I could have missed it)
Looks good though great stuff!
Mike
Get Outlook for Android
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:52 AM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael,
I pushed up the branch I've been working on here:
https://github.com/cshannon/activemq-artemis/tree/downstreamFederationPrototype
So you can take a look and see what you think. There are updated tests
implemented in both FederatedQueueTest and FederatedAddressTest classes if
you want to see it in action.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:13 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will push up my branch Monday to github so you can take a look.
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:36 AM
> wrote:
>
>> Do you have a branch with it at all even if not PR ready?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Get Outlook for Android
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As an update I have a decent prototype now for downstream configurations
>> that I am still polishing and working on tests. I'm only in the office a
>> couple days this week so I will probably have a PR ready for the following
>> week.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Gary,
>> >
>> > That sounds like a good idea as I think you're right that AMQP could
>> help
>> > solve some of the issues with flow control. Plus the broker supports
>> > native AMQP now so performance would be good. In regards to duplex
>> that is
>> > a good point I forgot about since in general I setup the same
>> credentials
>> > on both brokers of a bridge (plus I just use TLS so all brokers have
>> certs)
>> > but re-using the same connection certainly does allow for
>> authentication to
>> > be a lot easier. So I think the duplex case probably does (or at least
>> > should have the ability) to share the same connection like on 5.x. I
>> > figure ultimately we could have lots of bridge types...maybe this new
>> AMQP
>> > bridge, the existing federated address/queue stuff, and there is still
>> > clustering so users will have options to decide what is best for their
>> use
>> > case.
>> >
>> > For now, to make things simple, I've decided just to start work on a PR
>> to
>> > allow configuring of a downstream broker with the existing setup (not
>> going
>> > with duplex) as that should be a good start. I'm just going to send the
>> > config info to the remote broker and then that broker will establish an
>> > upstream link based on the config. After that the next stuff I want to
>> > target is to add metrics and also to support divert bindings for driving
>> > demand. (equivalent to the 5.x virtual destination demand feature I
>> added
>> > in 5.13.x)
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:29 AM Gary Tully wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Christopher,
>> >> this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to see
>> >> if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only moving
>> >> messages that are needed.
>> >> The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the
>> >> bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rather than have all
>> >> messages move between brokers when local consumers are slow, only move
>> >> to satisfy remote/upstream credit and react to it dynamically, which
>> >> is a fundamental part of AMQP flow control.
>> >>
>> >> i need to pull together a POC of this to verify how easy/hard it will
>> >> be to aggregate credit demand etc and have outbound AMQP calls, but I
>> >> think it can be really good and fix an age old problem with the 5.x
>> >> bridge.
>> >>
>> >> it would also help with the duplex part because of the symmetric nature
>> >> of AMQP.
>> >>
>> >> on the duplex and configuration command, authentication was one
>> >> problem in 5.x, in that the same users needed to exist on all brokers
>> >> b/c the user/pass etc was part of the bridge config, I think the
>> >> "reuse of the same connection" may be important to avoid that need. It
>> >> will typically need to be TLS and maybe cert based authentication so
>> >> maybe SASL would also come into play.
>> >>
>> >> The duplex case in my mind was always about hub/spoke where the hub
>> >> did not need to be aware of the spokes configuration. Each spoke could
>> >> initiate a duplex/two way bridge to the hub and not require any
>> >> additional fire wall ports. To my mind, propagation of config and
>> >> reuse of the connection was always related.
>> >> But for sure small steps. And maybe AMQP can help!
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:34, Christopher Shannon
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream
>> >> portion
>> >> > first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection which is
>> >> what
>> >> > happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote broker
>> >> gets
>> >> > a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
>> >> >
>> >> > So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and just
>> >> > automatically create two connections. So for example we could
>> define a
>> >> > duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the
>> covers
>> >> the
>> >> > federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection
>> >> > automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance
>> anyways
>> >> > and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of
>> the
>> >> > other. We could also support both options, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually
>> quite
>> >> > > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells all
>> the
>> >> > > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes sense to
>> >> me as a
>> >> > > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the
>> >> "duplex"
>> >> > > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and the
>> >> "duplex"
>> >> > > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always
>> >> conceived
>> >> > > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge to be
>> >> able to
>> >> > > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Justin
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I try
>> and
>> >> > > migrate
>> >> > > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x
>> does
>> >> > > bridging
>> >> > > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what I
>> >> need than
>> >> > > > clustering.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements that
>> >> will be
>> >> > > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you
>> can
>> >> only
>> >> > > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x
>> >> configures a
>> >> > > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to go
>> >> ahead and
>> >> > > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both downstream
>> >> brokers
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > > hopefully duplex as well.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a
>> >> > > configuration
>> >> > > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is made
>> >> to the
>> >> > > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the
>> info
>> >> for
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this
>> >> config,
>> >> > > parse
>> >> > > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that information
>> >> back to
>> >> > > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a
>> >> downstream
>> >> > > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the
>> bridge
>> >> to
>> >> > > > simplify things.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to
>> get
>> >> some
>> >> > > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a
>> >> downstream
>> >> > > > broker?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements
Posted by mi...@me.com.INVALID.
Thanks will check it out.
Get Outlook for Android
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:52 AM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael,
I pushed up the branch I've been working on here:
https://github.com/cshannon/activemq-artemis/tree/downstreamFederationPrototype
So you can take a look and see what you think. There are updated tests
implemented in both FederatedQueueTest and FederatedAddressTest classes if
you want to see it in action.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:13 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will push up my branch Monday to github so you can take a look.
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:36 AM
> wrote:
>
>> Do you have a branch with it at all even if not PR ready?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Get Outlook for Android
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As an update I have a decent prototype now for downstream configurations
>> that I am still polishing and working on tests. I'm only in the office a
>> couple days this week so I will probably have a PR ready for the following
>> week.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Gary,
>> >
>> > That sounds like a good idea as I think you're right that AMQP could
>> help
>> > solve some of the issues with flow control. Plus the broker supports
>> > native AMQP now so performance would be good. In regards to duplex
>> that is
>> > a good point I forgot about since in general I setup the same
>> credentials
>> > on both brokers of a bridge (plus I just use TLS so all brokers have
>> certs)
>> > but re-using the same connection certainly does allow for
>> authentication to
>> > be a lot easier. So I think the duplex case probably does (or at least
>> > should have the ability) to share the same connection like on 5.x. I
>> > figure ultimately we could have lots of bridge types...maybe this new
>> AMQP
>> > bridge, the existing federated address/queue stuff, and there is still
>> > clustering so users will have options to decide what is best for their
>> use
>> > case.
>> >
>> > For now, to make things simple, I've decided just to start work on a PR
>> to
>> > allow configuring of a downstream broker with the existing setup (not
>> going
>> > with duplex) as that should be a good start. I'm just going to send the
>> > config info to the remote broker and then that broker will establish an
>> > upstream link based on the config. After that the next stuff I want to
>> > target is to add metrics and also to support divert bindings for driving
>> > demand. (equivalent to the 5.x virtual destination demand feature I
>> added
>> > in 5.13.x)
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:29 AM Gary Tully wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Christopher,
>> >> this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to see
>> >> if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only moving
>> >> messages that are needed.
>> >> The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the
>> >> bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rather than have all
>> >> messages move between brokers when local consumers are slow, only move
>> >> to satisfy remote/upstream credit and react to it dynamically, which
>> >> is a fundamental part of AMQP flow control.
>> >>
>> >> i need to pull together a POC of this to verify how easy/hard it will
>> >> be to aggregate credit demand etc and have outbound AMQP calls, but I
>> >> think it can be really good and fix an age old problem with the 5.x
>> >> bridge.
>> >>
>> >> it would also help with the duplex part because of the symmetric nature
>> >> of AMQP.
>> >>
>> >> on the duplex and configuration command, authentication was one
>> >> problem in 5.x, in that the same users needed to exist on all brokers
>> >> b/c the user/pass etc was part of the bridge config, I think the
>> >> "reuse of the same connection" may be important to avoid that need. It
>> >> will typically need to be TLS and maybe cert based authentication so
>> >> maybe SASL would also come into play.
>> >>
>> >> The duplex case in my mind was always about hub/spoke where the hub
>> >> did not need to be aware of the spokes configuration. Each spoke could
>> >> initiate a duplex/two way bridge to the hub and not require any
>> >> additional fire wall ports. To my mind, propagation of config and
>> >> reuse of the connection was always related.
>> >> But for sure small steps. And maybe AMQP can help!
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:34, Christopher Shannon
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream
>> >> portion
>> >> > first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection which is
>> >> what
>> >> > happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote broker
>> >> gets
>> >> > a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
>> >> >
>> >> > So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and just
>> >> > automatically create two connections. So for example we could
>> define a
>> >> > duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the
>> covers
>> >> the
>> >> > federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection
>> >> > automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance
>> anyways
>> >> > and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of
>> the
>> >> > other. We could also support both options, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually
>> quite
>> >> > > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells all
>> the
>> >> > > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes sense to
>> >> me as a
>> >> > > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the
>> >> "duplex"
>> >> > > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and the
>> >> "duplex"
>> >> > > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always
>> >> conceived
>> >> > > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge to be
>> >> able to
>> >> > > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Justin
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I try
>> and
>> >> > > migrate
>> >> > > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x
>> does
>> >> > > bridging
>> >> > > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what I
>> >> need than
>> >> > > > clustering.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements that
>> >> will be
>> >> > > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you
>> can
>> >> only
>> >> > > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x
>> >> configures a
>> >> > > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to go
>> >> ahead and
>> >> > > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both downstream
>> >> brokers
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > > hopefully duplex as well.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a
>> >> > > configuration
>> >> > > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is made
>> >> to the
>> >> > > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the
>> info
>> >> for
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this
>> >> config,
>> >> > > parse
>> >> > > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that information
>> >> back to
>> >> > > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a
>> >> downstream
>> >> > > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the
>> bridge
>> >> to
>> >> > > > simplify things.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to
>> get
>> >> some
>> >> > > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a
>> >> downstream
>> >> > > > broker?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Michael,
I pushed up the branch I've been working on here:
https://github.com/cshannon/activemq-artemis/tree/downstreamFederationPrototype
So you can take a look and see what you think. There are updated tests
implemented in both FederatedQueueTest and FederatedAddressTest classes if
you want to see it in action.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:13 PM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will push up my branch Monday to github so you can take a look.
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:36 AM <mi...@me.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Do you have a branch with it at all even if not PR ready?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Get Outlook for Android
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As an update I have a decent prototype now for downstream configurations
>> that I am still polishing and working on tests. I'm only in the office a
>> couple days this week so I will probably have a PR ready for the following
>> week.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Gary,
>> >
>> > That sounds like a good idea as I think you're right that AMQP could
>> help
>> > solve some of the issues with flow control. Plus the broker supports
>> > native AMQP now so performance would be good. In regards to duplex
>> that is
>> > a good point I forgot about since in general I setup the same
>> credentials
>> > on both brokers of a bridge (plus I just use TLS so all brokers have
>> certs)
>> > but re-using the same connection certainly does allow for
>> authentication to
>> > be a lot easier. So I think the duplex case probably does (or at least
>> > should have the ability) to share the same connection like on 5.x. I
>> > figure ultimately we could have lots of bridge types...maybe this new
>> AMQP
>> > bridge, the existing federated address/queue stuff, and there is still
>> > clustering so users will have options to decide what is best for their
>> use
>> > case.
>> >
>> > For now, to make things simple, I've decided just to start work on a PR
>> to
>> > allow configuring of a downstream broker with the existing setup (not
>> going
>> > with duplex) as that should be a good start. I'm just going to send the
>> > config info to the remote broker and then that broker will establish an
>> > upstream link based on the config. After that the next stuff I want to
>> > target is to add metrics and also to support divert bindings for driving
>> > demand. (equivalent to the 5.x virtual destination demand feature I
>> added
>> > in 5.13.x)
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:29 AM Gary Tully wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Christopher,
>> >> this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to see
>> >> if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only moving
>> >> messages that are needed.
>> >> The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the
>> >> bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rather than have all
>> >> messages move between brokers when local consumers are slow, only move
>> >> to satisfy remote/upstream credit and react to it dynamically, which
>> >> is a fundamental part of AMQP flow control.
>> >>
>> >> i need to pull together a POC of this to verify how easy/hard it will
>> >> be to aggregate credit demand etc and have outbound AMQP calls, but I
>> >> think it can be really good and fix an age old problem with the 5.x
>> >> bridge.
>> >>
>> >> it would also help with the duplex part because of the symmetric nature
>> >> of AMQP.
>> >>
>> >> on the duplex and configuration command, authentication was one
>> >> problem in 5.x, in that the same users needed to exist on all brokers
>> >> b/c the user/pass etc was part of the bridge config, I think the
>> >> "reuse of the same connection" may be important to avoid that need. It
>> >> will typically need to be TLS and maybe cert based authentication so
>> >> maybe SASL would also come into play.
>> >>
>> >> The duplex case in my mind was always about hub/spoke where the hub
>> >> did not need to be aware of the spokes configuration. Each spoke could
>> >> initiate a duplex/two way bridge to the hub and not require any
>> >> additional fire wall ports. To my mind, propagation of config and
>> >> reuse of the connection was always related.
>> >> But for sure small steps. And maybe AMQP can help!
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:34, Christopher Shannon
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream
>> >> portion
>> >> > first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection which is
>> >> what
>> >> > happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote broker
>> >> gets
>> >> > a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
>> >> >
>> >> > So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and just
>> >> > automatically create two connections. So for example we could
>> define a
>> >> > duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the
>> covers
>> >> the
>> >> > federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection
>> >> > automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance
>> anyways
>> >> > and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of
>> the
>> >> > other. We could also support both options, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually
>> quite
>> >> > > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells all
>> the
>> >> > > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes sense to
>> >> me as a
>> >> > > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the
>> >> "duplex"
>> >> > > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and the
>> >> "duplex"
>> >> > > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always
>> >> conceived
>> >> > > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge to be
>> >> able to
>> >> > > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Justin
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon <
>> >> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I try
>> and
>> >> > > migrate
>> >> > > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x
>> does
>> >> > > bridging
>> >> > > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what I
>> >> need than
>> >> > > > clustering.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements that
>> >> will be
>> >> > > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you
>> can
>> >> only
>> >> > > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x
>> >> configures a
>> >> > > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to go
>> >> ahead and
>> >> > > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both downstream
>> >> brokers
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > > hopefully duplex as well.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a
>> >> > > configuration
>> >> > > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is made
>> >> to the
>> >> > > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the
>> info
>> >> for
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this
>> >> config,
>> >> > > parse
>> >> > > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that information
>> >> back to
>> >> > > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a
>> >> downstream
>> >> > > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the
>> bridge
>> >> to
>> >> > > > simplify things.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to
>> get
>> >> some
>> >> > > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a
>> >> downstream
>> >> > > > broker?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis Federation improvements
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I will push up my branch Monday to github so you can take a look.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:36 AM <mi...@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> Do you have a branch with it at all even if not PR ready?
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM +0000, "Christopher Shannon" <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As an update I have a decent prototype now for downstream configurations
> that I am still polishing and working on tests. I'm only in the office a
> couple days this week so I will probably have a PR ready for the following
> week.
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:18 AM Christopher Shannon <
> christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gary,
> >
> > That sounds like a good idea as I think you're right that AMQP could help
> > solve some of the issues with flow control. Plus the broker supports
> > native AMQP now so performance would be good. In regards to duplex that
> is
> > a good point I forgot about since in general I setup the same credentials
> > on both brokers of a bridge (plus I just use TLS so all brokers have
> certs)
> > but re-using the same connection certainly does allow for authentication
> to
> > be a lot easier. So I think the duplex case probably does (or at least
> > should have the ability) to share the same connection like on 5.x. I
> > figure ultimately we could have lots of bridge types...maybe this new
> AMQP
> > bridge, the existing federated address/queue stuff, and there is still
> > clustering so users will have options to decide what is best for their
> use
> > case.
> >
> > For now, to make things simple, I've decided just to start work on a PR
> to
> > allow configuring of a downstream broker with the existing setup (not
> going
> > with duplex) as that should be a good start. I'm just going to send the
> > config info to the remote broker and then that broker will establish an
> > upstream link based on the config. After that the next stuff I want to
> > target is to add metrics and also to support divert bindings for driving
> > demand. (equivalent to the 5.x virtual destination demand feature I added
> > in 5.13.x)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:29 AM Gary Tully wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Christopher,
> >> this is timely, I started peeking at federation this week also, to see
> >> if I can make it a "better bridge" from the perspective of only moving
> >> messages that are needed.
> >> The idea is to use AMQP as the protocol and flow messages across the
> >> bridge based on aggregate AMQP credit, ie: rather than have all
> >> messages move between brokers when local consumers are slow, only move
> >> to satisfy remote/upstream credit and react to it dynamically, which
> >> is a fundamental part of AMQP flow control.
> >>
> >> i need to pull together a POC of this to verify how easy/hard it will
> >> be to aggregate credit demand etc and have outbound AMQP calls, but I
> >> think it can be really good and fix an age old problem with the 5.x
> >> bridge.
> >>
> >> it would also help with the duplex part because of the symmetric nature
> >> of AMQP.
> >>
> >> on the duplex and configuration command, authentication was one
> >> problem in 5.x, in that the same users needed to exist on all brokers
> >> b/c the user/pass etc was part of the bridge config, I think the
> >> "reuse of the same connection" may be important to avoid that need. It
> >> will typically need to be TLS and maybe cert based authentication so
> >> maybe SASL would also come into play.
> >>
> >> The duplex case in my mind was always about hub/spoke where the hub
> >> did not need to be aware of the spokes configuration. Each spoke could
> >> initiate a duplex/two way bridge to the hub and not require any
> >> additional fire wall ports. To my mind, propagation of config and
> >> reuse of the connection was always related.
> >> But for sure small steps. And maybe AMQP can help!
> >>
> >> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:34, Christopher Shannon
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream
> >> portion
> >> > first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection which is
> >> what
> >> > happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote broker
> >> gets
> >> > a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
> >> >
> >> > So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and just
> >> > automatically create two connections. So for example we could define
> a
> >> > duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the
> covers
> >> the
> >> > federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection
> >> > automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance
> anyways
> >> > and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of the
> >> > other. We could also support both options, etc.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually
> quite
> >> > > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells all
> the
> >> > > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes sense to
> >> me as a
> >> > > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the
> >> "duplex"
> >> > > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and the
> >> "duplex"
> >> > > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always
> >> conceived
> >> > > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge to be
> >> able to
> >> > > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Justin
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon <
> >> > > christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I try
> and
> >> > > migrate
> >> > > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x does
> >> > > bridging
> >> > > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what I
> >> need than
> >> > > > clustering.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements that
> >> will be
> >> > > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you can
> >> only
> >> > > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x
> >> configures a
> >> > > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to go
> >> ahead and
> >> > > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both downstream
> >> brokers
> >> > > and
> >> > > > hopefully duplex as well.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a
> >> > > configuration
> >> > > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is made
> >> to the
> >> > > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the
> info
> >> for
> >> > > the
> >> > > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this
> >> config,
> >> > > parse
> >> > > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that information
> >> back to
> >> > > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a
> >> downstream
> >> > > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the bridge
> >> to
> >> > > > simplify things.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to get
> >> some
> >> > > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a
> >> downstream
> >> > > > broker?
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>