Hi Rob! Yes it works now and it do help me out of trouble. Thank you every much!
rajdavies wrote: > > 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. >> > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/could-Networks-of-Brokers-feature-do-this-job--t1484911.html#a4112765 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
