> what I understood from the documentation is that with the scale-down option it should very well be possible to offload the current work to another live server (in case of normal shutdown, of course). Or am I wrong?
Your understanding is correct. However, scale-down and HA are not the same thing although they are related. HA is to protect data in case of a broker failure. The typical scale-down use case is for dynamic clusters where nodes may be brought-up and then shut-down in response to increasing and decreasing loads. Your previous message talked about HA and not scale-down specifically. > A client currently connected to a live server is being notified that this server is going down and which server will take up the work. By what? The connector-ref definition in some cluster configuration (which might not be public accessable at all)? Or the public acceptor definition of the target server? Where the broker scales-down is determined by the configuration as outlined in the documentation. I'm not sure what you mean by "public" in this context. > ...what happens to current transactions/messages in progress if I shutdown (not abort) the live server? It depends on your configuration. If you've set failover-on-shutdown = true (as discussed in the documentation) then the backup will activate and all your persistent data (including transaction state) will be available on the backup. If failover-on-shutdown = false then the backup will not activate and your persistent data will not be available again until you restart that broker. > What happens to messages which are not marked as PERSISTENT? If you shutdown a broker without scale-down then all non-persistent data will be lost. That's how non-persistent data works - it doesn't survive a broker failure or restart. Justin On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Archibald <arch...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > what I understood from the documentation is that with the scale-down option > it should very well be possible to offload the current work to another live > server (in case of normal shutdown, of course). Or am I wrong? > > And how's scaled down interally handled? A client currently connected to a > live server is being notified that this server is going down and which > server will take up the work. By what? The connector-ref definition in some > cluster configuration (which might not be public accessable at all)? Or the > public acceptor definition of the target server? > > If I now change the environment to one live and one backup server with a > shared storage (jdbc), what happens to current transactions/messages in > progress if I shutdown (not abort) the live server? > Will those be migrated to the backup server? What happens to messages which > are not marked as PERSISTENT? > > Sorry for bothering with so many questions. But clustering is (was never) > easy to implement... > > Br, > A. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User- > f2341805.html >
