On 8/8/06, superuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We would heavily prefer a shared-nothing architecture, and so for this reason are not considering a "shared backend" scenario. I had not considered a network of Master/Slave brokers, would this look, in a two machine configuration, something like: MACHINE1: MQ-A-PRIMARY MQ-B-BACKUP MACHINE2: MQ-A-BACKUP MQ-B-PRIMARY Where backups would be configured as normal and all servers would be configured as a network of brokers. Clients would have a connection string like "failover://(tcp://MQ-A-PRIMARY:PORT,tcp://MQ-B-PRIMARY:PORT,tcp://MQ-A-BACKUP:PORT,tcp://MQ-B-BACKUP:PORT)" Would this be a minimal HA cluster?
Yes - 4 brokers in 2 master-slave pairs with the broker M/S pairs store-and-forwarding to each other.
Incidentally, the "topology" section of the site was not necessarily crystal clear as to what a typical configuration would look like. I would think something like a list of use-cases, with a diagram of the topology and some lniks to .conf files for each would be VERY beneficial.
Agreed. We welcome contributions :) http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/contributing.html The website is a wiki so anyone can contribute documentation and diagrams.. http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/how-does-the-website-work.html -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
