I like the idea of broker-broker synchronization. One of the issues to resolve is how reliable this synch activity needs to be ? A transactional approach is too heavy weight for the common case.
I think a middle ground based on TCP may be good enough. We can divide the synchronization into two phases: - dynamic synch : messages are sent to the partner on an ongoing basis - bulk synch: a new secondary comes up and its state needs to be brought up to par with primary Thanks Regards - Sridhar On 3/6/06, Ning Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > This is a continued discussion about dynamically reintroduce the master > after a failure, the original discussion is here. > > http://forums.activemq.org/posts/list/468.page#1653 > > James idea about pausing the slave and synchronize two DBs is better > than stopping the slave and doing a manual sync. But I doubt this is > acceptable to us, as in real production environment, we won't be able to > pause the only message broker unless for a really short interval (I > guess have to less than one minute otherwise the end user will notice > it). > > Maybe a broker-broker synchronization protocol is the ultimate solution, > just we are not sure how to get there. Any recommendation or > suggestions? > > > Thanks > > Ning >
