Whoops,
Sorry to have inadvertently led this thread down a slightly
unproductive path. What we must always keep in mind is that ActiveMQ is open
source, and that we all undertake a certain amount of risk when we use it,
or as in my case, recommend that our valued clients use it. My expectations
of ActiveMQ went up significantly after it was officially accepted as an
Apache incubator project, and I'll guess that's true of many users of
ActiveMQ. My decision to recommend ActiveMQ to my clients was based largely
on the fact that ActiveMQ is an apache incubator project and that there's a
very active (no pun intended) community supporting it. That being said, I
completely understand that certain key features may not work (yet) as
advertised.
From my experience thus far, I think ActiveMQ needs time to mature. If
you've got fairly basic, vanilla needs, you'll be really happy with
ActiveMQ. Things get tricky when you need to production-harden your
environment with High Availability and Clustering. So far, I have a working
Master-Slave setup with MySQL, and that works with low volumes and message
rates. I've also been able to get a 2-node cluster setup that allows
producing data onto one node and consuming data from the other (this works
with the failover:// url as well). I'm working through the various
scenarios, but will certainly publish the configuration files for the
various setups just as soon as I can. I'm convinced that with a lot of
tweaking and playing around, we'll arrive at a configuration that'll satisfy
our needs. Failing that, we'll switch to a commercial implementation.
PS: (For what it's worth, the story is much the same with Joram as well. The
High Availability functionality is new, and there's zilch vis-a-vis
documentation or examples.)
Regards,
Prashanth
Marlon Santos wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> well it just seems that the people behind amq are just busy. If they
> weren't, they will be more
> willing to help out guys.
>
> As to your issues, can you please post a test case, with descriptions
> about the problem. I'll try to help in ways I can.
>
> As to the other comments, please try to refrain the "flames" because this
> is an open source
> project, so please be polite as much as possible.
>
> Regards,
> Marlon
>
>
>
> conio wrote:
>>
>> Granted that I haven't tried ActiveMQ 4.1.0 yet, but earlier versions
>> seem to have serious problems with network of brokers together with
>> durable topic subscribers when network disconnects (between brokers)
>> happen. That was the simulated situations I tried, and the one feature I
>> would love to use and have in ActiveMQ.
>>
>> Unfortunately I must concur with Bernhard that the otherwise very
>> supportive mailing list went dead silent when I brought that subject up.
>>
>> //Jerker
>>
>> Javier Leyba wrote:
>>> On 12/21/06, Bernhard Wellhöfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello Prashanth,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the clustering/network or brokers feature is not ready
>>>> for a productive scenario. The problem is that the ActiveMQ homepage
>>>> does not warn you about this case. Therefore again and again people
>>>> waste time by trying out this feature - as each new mail for this
>>>> issue to the mailing list proves. It's a pity that this as a whole
>>>> makes ActiveMQ less trustworthy...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this totally true ???
>>>
>>> I've an application that use network of brokers ready to go to test.
>>> I've configured it with the help of this list and nobody told me what
>>> you say...
>>>
>>> If this is true I'll be in big problems after four months of
>>> development with this product. I can´t believe it !
>>>
>>> If this is true I'm a dead man... :(
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-tf2546736.html#a8010985
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
