Hi ActiveMQ, I'm trying to make a setup with four brokers, two on side A and two on side B for high availability. So at each side one broker is active, the other one is waiting for the kahadb-lock of a shared disk. In between side A and B the brokers connect with failover through SSL. The producers and consumers in side A and B connect via failover through openwire. Producers, consumers and brokers use ActiveMQ 5.4.1
The happy-path works fine, but because of the network of brokers the producer at side A gets informed about the openwire connection at side B (I debugged the source and it happens via a BrokerInfo object that is transferred to the producer during the startup of the connection). During a failover the producer at side A, who is producing to a failover string, suddenly tries (and succeeds) to connect to the openwire port of a broker at side B. This is not the behavior I want, the consumer should only know about the connections at side A, not about the SSL connections between A and B and the openwire connection at side B. Is there a way to let the network not propagate the topology of the network? For the borkers and for the clients? This problem could be solved via firewall settings but there must be a cleaner way? Some smaller questions: - What does the parameter trackMessages of the failover uri do exactly? I use this because I thought it was logic that it should be true. In a transactional connection I sometimes lose a complete transaction during failover, this happens less with the trackMessages on true. - Am I correct in saying that when you use a transactional connection, the producer (eg java program) should handle the TransactionRolledBackException you get during a failover itself? - I think the bug AMQ-2803 still exists in 5.4.1, the zombie messages, because after a failover (while sending eg 1000 messages to a queue) the pending message size stays one or two (connection is not transactional) - Should the producer and consumer use a failover uri? Or can it just contain the two openwire connections? I could be wrong, but it’s difficult to get a good grip on the stability of this complete failover setup, and that is just what I need, stability! Thanks in advance Pieter -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Questions-about-network-of-brokers-with-failover-tp3003405p3003405.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
