As far as I know, this behavior would happen with simple topics and simple queues just as much as with virtual topics; this is a result of ActiveMQ's fundamental architecture, not something specific to virtual topics. The architecture of ActiveMQ ensures that any broker only knows about its own messages and not those held by any other broker. This allows for complicated, flexible networks of brokers that would be difficult or impossible otherwise, but because brokers don't have access to messages elsewhere in the network, they can't replay messages if a broker goes down.
If you want reliability of message delivery in the face of broker failure (instead of only reliability of the routing infrastructure but temporary unavailability of messages), you should use the master/slave paradigm; it was developed to handle exactly the situation you're looking at. Also, you can have a durable subscription on a simple topic, which will allow the consumer to get all messages (including all messages sent while the consumer is disconnected), so I'm not sure why you're saying that a non-durable topic subscription is your best remaining option; I'd think that a durable subscription would still be preferable to a non-durable one for the use case you described, whether or not you use a master/slave broker pair to ensure that you can access all messages even when one broker goes down. Tim On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, jeremy11 <liav.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I guess this is a real problem with networks of broker and virtual topics, > I > thought it could solve the problem of messages getting stuck when one of > the > brokers go down. > I guess I will go on a simple topic and if my consumer goes down and > reconnects he will only gets new messages (not durable). > > thanks for the answers > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-as-a-cluster-tp4687028p4687033.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
