Broker toology

[fitzcaraldo <br...@marlo.com.au>]

I am looking to replace a small number (<30) of MQSeries queue managers with
AMQ.  The current topology connects all QMs via a central QM hub with
channels defined for each. 

I have 3 options for the replacement topology:

brokers on each machine with a central hub
brokers on each machine with no hub (with network connectors as required)
no broker on each machine with a central HA hub only

Other than network availability and volume considerations is there any
reason not to go for option 3?










--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Broker-toology-tp4659368.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Broker toology

[Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>]

Only question is message production if the hub is not available. A HA
hub helps, but not when the issue is a network partition.
With the local broker forwarding to the hub, the app can continue
chatting with the local broker.

On 14 November 2012 23:58, fitzcaraldo <br...@marlo.com.au> wrote:
> I am looking to replace a small number (<30) of MQSeries queue managers with
> AMQ.  The current topology connects all QMs via a central QM hub with
> channels defined for each.
>
> I have 3 options for the replacement topology:
>
> brokers on each machine with a central hub
> brokers on each machine with no hub (with network connectors as required)
> no broker on each machine with a central HA hub only
>
> Other than network availability and volume considerations is there any
> reason not to go for option 3?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Broker-toology-tp4659368.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



-- 
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com