2008/7/23 AD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello, > I am relatively new to activemq and I am trying to find the optimal setup > for a failover cluster of brokers. What i have is the following > > 2 physical servers each running a broker > 2 physical servers each running a consumer > 1 Java application implementing JMS API producer which will likely use > failover:// protocol. > > I am trying to figure out from the docs the recommended failover approach. > I dont have a SAN but I will have NFS, however it seems there are some > locking issues with using NFS as a shared storage. > > What i would ideally like is a basic master/slave setup where all consumers > connect to master and then fail over to the slave ( I understand current > release does not support failing back to primary) in addition to message > persistence so no messages are lost if they are unprocessed on the master > queue. > > Any recommendations here?
As Hans says, Pure Master/Slave is a good option - particularly as it doesn't require any special shared network drive or IP failover mechanism. I've worked with a number of customers who have gone with the shared file system approach; but rather than relying on shared file system file locking (which is sometimes unreliable), they've used a Virtual IP system to ensure that only one broker is running on the file system at any time - and using a unix Virtual IP system to fail over to another master. Either approach works fine; the latter is certainly a bit faster and easier from an ActiveMQ perspective - plus avoids the failback issue; but requires knowledge of setting up Virtual IP with failover etc. I tend to recommend the approach which suits your internal expertise & facilities the best. e.g. if you've a SAN or clustered oracle already; use that - if you're already using a Virtual IP system - hey use that too if you like; failing that there's Pure Master/Slave which is fine too (though does require manual fail back) -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://open.iona.com
