Hi Mathew,
could you tell us if there's a an active subscriber on BrokerC for
queue test_bj2ts
cheers,
Rob
On 24 Apr 2006, at 06:05, Matthew Xie wrote:
Thanks for your reply! James.
I do it as your suggestion but it still doesn't work. the problem
still
happened.
so i paste my configure scripts bellow, is there something wrong or
mistake?
if i use jmx console tool to inspect the queue, the BrokerB do have a
cousumer from BrokerC,
but why it can't get the message from it? is any one meet the
problem before
?
and here still a problem puzzles me.
In brokerA, if I set the value of "networkTTL" for brokerA's
networkConnector is 2, then i send a message to brokerA(brokerA
will store
and forward message to brokeB) , now while the brokerB recieving
the message
from brokerA, i want it forward the message to BrokerC. so in
brokerB , need
i
to set the value of "networkTTL" as 2? so which one will work as i
set the
"networkTTL" value both of them?
I do need your help! Thanks!
BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
failover="true" networkTTL="2">
name = bridgeA
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
failover="true" networkTTL="2">
name = bridgeB
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
Thanks!
rajdavies wrote:
Networks have a time to live property - networkTTL = which by default
is 1 - ie. messages only go one hop. Just increment this number to
the number of hops you want the message to go through
cheers,
Rob
On 21 Apr 2006, at 10:09, Matthew Xie wrote:
Thanks James and sorry to my poor expression.
yes, what i needed is store and forward feature.
i success configure one brokerA transfer message to brokeB, but i
want to
make
brokerA transfer message to brokerB then brokerB transfer mesage to
brokerC
(or maight be more 2 brokers) then finally the message need to
reach the
broker(C|N)
here's my experience by networks of brokers with three brokers.
brokerA transfer message(s) to brokerB. then brokerB transfer
message to
brokerC.
here the configuration uses networks.
but a problem i met is that brokerA could transfer message(s) to
brokerB,
but then brokerB could not
transfer message(s) to brokerC. follow is my configuration(s). is
here any
things wrong?
BrokerA's acitvemq.xml（ip:10.1.19.19)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.62:61616)"
failover="true">
name = bridgeA
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokerB's acitvemq.xml(10.1.19.62)
<networkConnector uri="static://(tcp://10.1.19.61:61616)"
failover="true">
name = bridgeB
dynamicOnly = false
conduitSubscriptions = true
decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority = false
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
<queue physicalName="test_bj2ts"/>
</dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
</networkConnector>
BrokeC's acitvemq.xml(ip: 10.1.19.61)
...
could you do me favor why brokerB couldn't transfer message(s) to
brokerC
while it recieved message from brokerA.
Thanks!
James.Strachan wrote:
What is it you are trying to achieve?
If you want store and forward across a number of brokers (it
doesn't
matter how many) then just set up a demand forwarding network as
described here
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
If you have a large number of brokers you might want to use some
form
of discovery (such as multicast) to avoid having to maintain huge
lists of static machine addresses & ports etc.
On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks James!
I have read your reply that i think it will work. but if i have
more than
3
brokers in use,
it will become more and more complex.
i find a artical says that activemq can provider such function.
The url is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/How+do+distributed+queues
+work
here I quoted from this artical:
"Each node communicates with a broker and we can support
networks of
brokers. Thats to say brokers can communicate with brokers so
that we can
make large networks of nodes and brokers. When a JMS producer
sends a
message to a JMS consumer, it may travel through several brokers
to reach
its final destination."
but I doesn't find any examples to help me to understand how to
work with
it.
so it is appreciate that if you could show me some examples
for it.
Thanks.
James.Strachan wrote:
You can link broker 1 to broker2 and broker3. By default
messages will
be load balanced across broker2 and broker3 (assuming there are
consumers on those brokers & you are using demand based
forwarding).
If you want ActiveMQ to use broker2 by default then you can give
broker2 a higher consumer priority so that it will be used by
default
until it dies and then broker3 will be used.
BTW be sure to check out master/slave if you want to replicate
messages to 2 physical brokers to get high availability and
failover
(rather than store and forward).
http://activemq.org/MasterSlave
On 4/21/06, Matthew Xie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First thanks James. i had read the artical you shown me:
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/Networks+of+Brokers
it do works for me.
but I have a another more complex challenge .
now i could use AcitveMQ broker1 transfer message(s) to another
AcitveMQ
broker2.
The question now i given is that if I have the third AcitveMQ
broke3,
while
here a problem(eg.network problem) accuse between broker1 and
broker2(and
broker3 can connect each of them), so they cann't be
connected .is
that
networks of brokers can do this feature that broker1 will use
broker3
to
transfer message(s) to broker2. Any replay will be appreciated!
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
job--t1484911.html#a4021349
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-
job--t1484911.html#a4022299
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4022911
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-
of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4058503
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
