http://activemq.apache.org/fanout-transport-reference.html - is the
place to look to get started
On 29 Jan 2009, at 17:00, James Strachan wrote:
The fanout transport kinda has most of the implementation code to do
this; it just needs to be hacked a little so that consume start/stop
commands are sent to multiple brokers and transactions/acks are
correctly sent to the broker that sent the original message. There
might be some fun and games with transactions in there mind; but for
simple-ish use cases it shouldn't be too hard to hack the
FanoutTransport if anyone fancies having a go
2009/1/29 Jim Lloyd <jll...@silvertailsystems.com>:
I'm interested in a variation of this for load balancing. Assume
the volume
of data coming from publishers is very large, and you need N
brokers (think
N is 10 or more). Furthermore, you want N+1 or N+2 redundancy so
that if any
1 or 2 brokers die, there is sufficient capacity to continue
handling all of
the traffic (after affected publishers reconnect). The brokers
might all be
behind a hardware load balancer (e.g. F5 or NetScaler) so that all
publishers connect via a virtual IP.
Now, from the consumer side, we also have many consumers. Each
consumer only
subscribes to a subset of the available topics, and we arrange via
design of
our topics such that one consumer can always keep up with the
volume of data
published on one topic. But the consumer must connect to every
broker.
So, we need a fan-in variation of a failover transport that
connects to
every broker and actively consumes data from all brokers. If any
broker
disconnects, the consumer would use the exponential backoff
reconnect logic
to reconnect when the broker becomes available.
So, the backup=true option isn't helpful. Instead, we want
something like
"fan_in=true".
It's not hard to build this kind of fan in logic on top of the
failover
transport, but it would be cool if the failover transport was
capable of
doing fan in directly.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
have you looked at the failover transport? see:
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html
with the backup=true option, a connection to all listed brokers will
be created so that they are in hot standby in
the event that the first connection is dropped. In this way,
failover
can be very fast.
2009/1/29 kaykay <kaykay.uni...@gmail.com>:
This thread is old but just curious if there has been a recent
update of
this
w.r.t ActiveMQ 5.2 . The problem that I am trying to solve is
similar
where
a consumer listens to multiple brokers (as a failover redundancy
issue
instead of listening to a single broker).
Stepan Koltsov wrote:
I'm playing with 5.0.
How do you think, is it hard to write new Transport that
consumes from
multiple brokers?
S.
ttmdev wrote:
Yes, I got similar results in my consumer testing. What version
of AMQ
are you using?
Your only recourse may be to multi thread your consumer and
have it
create a connection to each of the brokers.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Single-consumer-for-multiple-brokers--tp15768836p21729358.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
http://blog.garytully.com
Open Source SOA
http://FUSESource.com
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
