Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
I could have sworn I had read something on the wiki that indicated this used to work (and that failing to exclude the queues would result in duplicate messages), but I can't find it so maybe I'm thinking of something else. Thanks for humoring my faulty memory. So what happened when you included the topics in the staticallyIncludedDestinations element? On Oct 15, 2016 11:18 PM, "Devlin"wrote: We may need to support standard subscribers to the virtual topic, but it's not a drop-dead requirement. Having said that, we verified the broker network is working for standard queues/topics using the above configuration, but not virtual topics, even after removing . VT's are only working when producers AND consumers are all connected to the same broker. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717975.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
We may need to support standard subscribers to the virtual topic, but it's not a drop-dead requirement. Having said that, we verified the broker network is working for standard queues/topics using the above configuration, but not virtual topics, even after removing . VT's are only working when producers AND consumers are all connected to the same broker. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717975.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
BTW, do you have consumers consuming directly from the virtual topic, or only via queues? If you have no topic consumers, I believe you can just remove your excludedDestinations entry and everything will work as intended. As I understand it, the problems only occur when you have a mix of queue and topic consumers. On Oct 15, 2016 6:53 PM, "Tim Bain"wrote: > Correct, statically include the topics, not the queues. > > On Oct 15, 2016 9:27 AM, "Devlin" wrote: > >> Ok, just to be clear, we define the virtual topic statically (the one >> used by >> the producer), not the individual consumer queues. I hope it's the former >> because client queues for virtual topics are named using "app-version" >> convention for grouping related consumers; we can't define those names >> statically as they're too volatile. Will report back on this. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nab >> ble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717968.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
Correct, statically include the topics, not the queues. On Oct 15, 2016 9:27 AM, "Devlin"wrote: > Ok, just to be clear, we define the virtual topic statically (the one used > by > the producer), not the individual consumer queues. I hope it's the former > because client queues for virtual topics are named using "app-version" > convention for grouping related consumers; we can't define those names > statically as they're too volatile. Will report back on this. > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717968.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
Ok, just to be clear, we define the virtual topic statically (the one used by the producer), not the individual consumer queues. I hope it's the former because client queues for virtual topics are named using "app-version" convention for grouping related consumers; we can't define those names statically as they're too volatile. Will report back on this. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717968.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
I believe that listing all virtual topics in the staticallyIncludedDestinations element would work. Please let us know if it works, so that the next person knows whether this is an option for them. Tim On Oct 14, 2016 9:07 PM, "Devlin"wrote: > Tim, > > The documentation on this topic (haha!) was never 100% clear to me. Here's > what we want to achieve given our architecture: > > Topology > > 12 broker network (full-mesh) > All destinations dynamic (no static definitions) > Clients connect and reconnect with random brokers (preference to local) > AMQ 6.2.1 (preping for 6.3) > > What we need > --- > + Virtual topics working in above architecture. > * Virtual topics to support queue *and* normal topic subscribers (can live > without this if duplication cannot be avoided) > > It's my understanding AMQ 6.3 still uses ActiveMQ 5.11, bummer if that's > true, so as you said, we can't use useVirtualDestSubs broker params. > > Question > > If we statically-defined all virtual topics (we don't have many), can we > meet the requirements above? > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717957.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
Tim, The documentation on this topic (haha!) was never 100% clear to me. Here's what we want to achieve given our architecture: Topology 12 broker network (full-mesh) All destinations dynamic (no static definitions) Clients connect and reconnect with random brokers (preference to local) AMQ 6.2.1 (preping for 6.3) What we need --- + Virtual topics working in above architecture. * Virtual topics to support queue *and* normal topic subscribers (can live without this if duplication cannot be avoided) It's my understanding AMQ 6.3 still uses ActiveMQ 5.11, bummer if that's true, so as you said, we can't use useVirtualDestSubs broker params. Question If we statically-defined all virtual topics (we don't have many), can we meet the requirements above? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717957.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
The description on the Network of Brokers wiki page says that what you're trying to do won't work without those flags set, so you should upgrade if this is a feature you need to use. Tim On Oct 13, 2016 6:33 PM, "Devlin"wrote: > Hi Tim, > > We managed to get working virtual topics in a 2 broker network, but only > for > cases where producer and consumers are using the same broker; consumers > connected to the broker where the producer is not present did not receive > messages. We confirmed the network functions as expected for standard > topics/queues, but not for virtual topics. > > I found this in the docs, looks interesting, not sure if it would help, but > regardless, it's for 5.13, we're on 5.11. > useVirtualDestSubsOnCreation="true"> > . > > > Here's our config: > > > > prefix="*.*.*._vsub.*." selectorAware="true"/> > > > > > > name="owire" > uri="tcp://0.0.0.0:61616" > updateClusterClients="true" > updateClusterClientsOnRemove="true"/> > > > > name="queueNetwork" > userName="${auth.user}" > password="${auth.password}" > uri="${network.uri.1}?${network.options}" > consumerTTL="1" > messageTTL="100" > conduitSubscriptions="false" > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="true" > suppressDuplicateQueueSubscriptions="true"> > > > > > > > > name="topicNetwork" > userName="${auth.user}" > password="${auth.password}" > uri="${network.uri.1}?${network.options}" > consumerTTL="1" > messageTTL="100" > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="true"> > > > > > > > > > > topic=">" > producerFlowControl="true" > gcInactiveDestinations="true" > inactiveTimoutBeforeGC="60"> > > limit="5000"/> > > > queue=">" > producerFlowControl="true" > memoryLimit="20mb" > enableAudit="false" > gcInactiveDestinations="true" > inactiveTimoutBeforeGC="60"> > >replayWhenNoConsumers="true" > replayDelay="1000" /> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717887.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
Hi Tim, We managed to get working virtual topics in a 2 broker network, but only for cases where producer and consumers are using the same broker; consumers connected to the broker where the producer is not present did not receive messages. We confirmed the network functions as expected for standard topics/queues, but not for virtual topics. I found this in the docs, looks interesting, not sure if it would help, but regardless, it's for 5.13, we're on 5.11. . Here's our config: -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717887.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations
This blog post ( http://workingwithqueues.blogspot.com/2012/05/activemq-virtual-topics-or-virtual.html?m=1) seems to indicate that you can. Please let us know if it works. On Oct 4, 2016 8:31 AM, "Devlin"wrote: > When customizing virtual topic consumer "prefix", can I use wildcards? > > I know this works: > > > > > > ..not sure if this /would/ work: > > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >