No. On Apr 1, 2016 11:13 AM, "Natarajan, Rajeswari" <rajeswari.natara...@sap.com> wrote:
> KahaDB has HA with ZooKeeper ? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tbai...@gmail.com [mailto:tbai...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bain > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:01 AM > To: ActiveMQ Users <users@activemq.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system > > There used to be a share-nothing master-slave configuration but it was > buggy and never worked right and has since been removed. Replicated > LevelDB is the only option that doesn't have a singleton resource, though > you could make the argument that the Zookeeper cluster is a singleton > resource spread over multiple hosts, or that JDBC to a clustered Oracle > instance is no more of a singleton resource than the Zookeeper cluster. > > As for whether replicated LevelDB is production ready, it's really a > question of how willing you are to experience bugs in production (and then > be an active part of the investigation). Replicated LevelDB is far less > buggy than it was a few versions back, but they haven't all been shaken out > yet, and this mailing list lacks an active LevelDB expert and many LevelDB > questions go unanswered, so you'll need to be able to figure out how to get > it working mostly on your own (using the wiki and the mailing list > archives), and if you hit a bug you may need to investigate it yourself. > > None of this is insurmountable, it's just a question of your personality, > your willingness to invest time into it, and your willingness to possibly > run into bugs. If you're able to live with those negatives and you'd like > to help make LevelDB better for the community, go for it. If you want > something that's as stable as possible and will require the least possible > amount of effort from you, go with KahaDB. > On Apr 1, 2016 5:37 AM, "James A. Robinson" <j...@highwire.org> wrote: > > > Some people are using it. I wanted to, but decided I wasn't comfortable > > relying on it. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 19:15 Natarajan, Rajeswari < > > rajeswari.natara...@sap.com> wrote: > > > > > Is replicated level DB store production ready now. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James A. Robinson [mailto:j...@highwire.org] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:19 PM > > > To: users@activemq.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system > > > > > > I'm not aware of any other choice. I initially tried to use the > > replicated > > > leveldb system but ran into too many stability issues. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:17 PM Natarajan, Rajeswari < > > > rajeswari.natara...@sap.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Would like to know if ActiveMQ supports HA with message replication > > > > without the shared DB or shared file system > > > > > > > > I see that there is a replicated level DB store which requires a > zoo > > > > keeper. Is there any other mechanism available other than these > > options > > > > where messages are getting replicated to the standby. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajeswari > > > > > > > > http://activemq.apache.org/replicated-leveldb-store.html > > > > > > > > > >
