BTW, I'm not convinced that a different network topology will avoid the exception you first asked about. Someone who knows XA transactions (which is not me, sorry) needs to look at that. On Oct 1, 2015 7:06 AM, "Tim Bain" <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> A network of brokers can be used for HA as long as the network topology > will remain fully connected in the face of N failures (for whatever value > of N you choose to support, probably 1) and the clients' failover URIs will > always contain a live broker in the face of the same failure(s). > > But you could also consider master/slave pairs using LevelDB as the > storage technology, which doesn't have a single point of failure. > > Tim > On Sep 29, 2015 3:45 PM, "mhempleman" <matthew.hemple...@alstom.com> > wrote: > >> Maybe I'm not using the network of brokers in the correct manner. Should >> a >> network of brokers be used for HA, or just scalability and load balancing? >> >> We are not concerned with the loss of a few messages if one broker fails; >> however, we want to make sure there is not a single point of failure in >> the >> system (one broker node), and we want the client to failover seamlessly in >> the event of a failure (which is not currently happening... see previous >> message). I looked into master/slave setups, but each seems to have a >> single point of failure. The failure points in the shared filesystem and >> shared db configurations are obvious. Any advice would be greatly >> appreciated. Thanks! >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-Brokers-XAException-on-Failover-tp4702355p4702445.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >
