+1 On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:48 PM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote:
> Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 00:06, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > 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. > > > > I'd simply remove the pages from the web site and consider the problem > solved. > Less time spent... > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet >
