To isolate different sets of services they run on separate artemis instances, and to avoid concern spilling into the application layer a limited number of queues have core bridges to other artemis clusters in the same datacenter for cross communication.
The dual mirroring on the other hand is for disaster recovery. I’m proposing something like: <mirror address-filter=”!forwardAfoo”/> ... <bridge ...> <queue-name>fowardAfoo</queue-name> <forwarding-address>foo</queue-name> Should that be ok? From: Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:01 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dual Mirroring and Core Bridges I wouldn't use both (bridge and mirroring between the servers) I would simplify your setup with either one or the other. On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:19 AM Stephen Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > We are running artemis multiple artemis clusters between hot and cold > datacenters in a dual mirroring setup, so: > > A mirrors with A’ > B mirrors with B’ > > We also have core bridges between A and B so: > > A.forwardBfoo goes to B.foo > A’.forwardBfoo goes to B’.foo (by virtue of symmetric configuration) > B.forwardAfoo goes to A.foo > A’.forwardAfoo goes to A’.foo > > My question, is does this potentially amplify/duplicate messages as the core > bridge picks up the forward on both sides of the mirror? > Does the answer depend on whether we’re running earlier/later than 2.24.0? > > If so is the recommended workaround to exclude the forward* queues in the > mirror configuration? > > Thanks, > Stephen E. Baker -- Clebert Suconic [EXTERNAL]: This email originated from outside of Rave Mobile Safety. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
