Justin, I wrote else-thread that actually, all the terms mentioned, including "active", "passive" and "standby" (which I actually like), have little to do with ActiveMQ actually and more to do with the deployment topology. And they apply to not only AMQ brokers, but any services deployed for resilience and a 100% uptime goal.
After the introduction of the network of brokers feature/concept, ActiveMQ supports many deployment topologies, rendering the whole master/slave concept kinda useless. In addition to that, its dependence on database locks makes it a bit finicky and certainly not scalable. I don't think I've seen a master/slave deployment in the past at least 8 years and I personally discourage its use. So, if anybody wants to do any good to the AMQ project and community, my recommendation is to just get rid of master/slave completely. I don't think anybody uses it anyway anymore. That would be useful to know actually, so if anybody uses master/slave, just give a nod. My $0.02, Hadrian On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:36 AM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > Clebert, do you have an alternative suggestion about how to distinguish > between the configured role and the running role? > > > Justin > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:19 AM Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active. > > > > > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a > > slave without being offensive. > > > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal > > opinion to the side there. > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is > > generally > > > called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and > > > "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not > > perfect, > > > but it covers most cases. > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < > > > bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or > > other > > > > terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA > > > > configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role > of > > > the > > > > broker. > > > > For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role > > > could > > > > acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover. > > > > > > > > Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk < > jda...@redhat.com > > > > > > ha > > > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every > > > usage > > > > in > > > > > > activeMQ. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is > > > > replicating > > > > > the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master > > dies. > > > > The > > > > > "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the > master > > > > > coordinates and all work is done on slaves. > > > > > > > > > > Looking at > > > > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming, > > > > > I'd suggest one of > > > > > > > > > > ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / > > follower’ > > > > > > > > > > I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it > > > > > somewhere in the context of database replication. > > > > > > > > > > Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit > of > > > the > > > > > echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children, > > > > reaping > > > > > zombies). > > > > > -- > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards > > > > > Jiri Daněk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > >
