I wouldn't mirror and send to the same broker!
a Mirror is a mirror.. .if you send to that mirror, the send will then update the mirror back.. that's a bit of a mess! Make it simple! On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:46 AM Stephen Baker <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> wrote: > > Or would you suggest swapping the core bridges for additional broker > connections > > <broker-connections> > <amqp-connection ... name=”B”> > <sender queue-name=”fowardBfoo” /> > <receiver queue-name=”foo” /> > </amqp-connection> > <amqp-connection ... name=”A_DC2” /> > <mirror address-filter=”!fowardBfoo” /> > </amqp-connection> > </broker-connections> > > > From: Stephen Baker <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> > Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:38 AM > To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Dual Mirroring and Core Bridges > 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:01 PM > To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> > 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 > <stephen.ba...@rmssoftwareinc.com> 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. > [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. -- Clebert Suconic
