> I wouldn't mirror and send to the same broker! That’s the problem I’m trying to solve.
I have disabled the core bridges on the mirror side, but that means there is an extra step in failover – stop the bridge on the old active side, start on the new active side. Dual mirroring was an easy sell to our IT department specifically because it meant they didn’t need to reconfigure artemis during failover. In theory if I exclude the source queues for the bridge from the mirror, then the bridge on the mirror side can keep running but will never get any messages. When we failover that bridge is already running to take the messages that are now coming in to it. I don’t know if you have thoughts on any simpler ways. From: Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 11:07 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dual Mirroring and Core Bridges 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:38 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > 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 <[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. > [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 [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.
