Tim, We missed that one! Looks promising, though the only gripe I have with that approach is duplication of data, creating maintenance overhead and higher likelihood of misconfigurations.
I assume the nested option I suggested is not supported? Raffi -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Bish [mailto:tabish...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 5:46 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Datacenter failover and randomizing connections [ EXTERNAL ] Importance: High On 09/24/2015 05:31 PM, Basmajian, Raffi wrote: > Hello, > > We're trying to determine the correct client failover URL for this scenario: > > 2 brokers in New York (master/slave) > 2 brokers in Chicago (master/slave) > > Client connections from NY are prioritized (and randomized) to NY; failover > to Chicago if no local brokers available. > Client connections from Chicago are prioritized (and randomized) to Chicago; > failover to NY if no local brokers available. > Topology is full graph/NoB; one network hop separates any two brokers. > > What we've tried so far (assumes clients located in NY) > > Randomizes connections across local and remote brokers (not good) > failover:(tcp://ny1,tcp://ny2,tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2) > > Always picks first local broker (not good) > failover:(tcp://ny1:61600,tcp://ny2,tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2)?randomize=f > alse > > No different than previous; always selects first broker > failover:(tcp://ny1,tcp://ny2,tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2)?randomize=false&p > riorityBackup=true > > We haven't tried this yet, but is it possible to nest failover transports? If > so, technically this should select the first group, NY brokers, randomizing > connections automatically within that cluster, then moving to Chicago and > doing the same if no brokers in NY are available. > failover:( failover:(tcp://ny1,tcp://ny2), > failover:(tcp://chi1,tcp://chi2))?randomize=false&priorityBackup=true > > We're exploring DNS and F5 options as well, but we want to leverage the > software as much as possible before configuring infrastructure. > > Thank you > Raffi > > > > > This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, > privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the person(s) > to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by any > person other than the intended recipient or the intended recipient's > designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or > their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and > delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole discretion, monitor, > review, retain and/or disclose the content of all email communications. > One option that you haven't yet tried given the above examples is priorityURIs Refer to the failover transport page: http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html -- Tim Bish Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. tim.b...@redhat.com | www.redhat.com twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
