Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

Natarajan, Rajeswari
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

James A. Robinson-2
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 <
[hidden email]> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

Natarajan, Rajeswari
Is  replicated level DB store production ready now.


-----Original Message-----
From: James A. Robinson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:19 PM
To: [hidden email]
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 <
[hidden email]> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

James A. Robinson-2
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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Is  replicated level DB store production ready now.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James A. Robinson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:19 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <
> [hidden email]> 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
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

Tim Bain
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Is  replicated level DB store production ready now.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James A. Robinson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:19 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

Natarajan, Rajeswari
KahaDB has HA with ZooKeeper ?


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tim Bain
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:01 AM
To: ActiveMQ Users <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Is  replicated level DB store production ready now.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James A. Robinson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:19 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Activemq HA without shared Database or Shared file system

Tim Bain
No.
On Apr 1, 2016 11:13 AM, "Natarajan, Rajeswari" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> KahaDB has HA with ZooKeeper ?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tim Bain
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:01 AM
> To: ActiveMQ Users <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Is  replicated level DB store production ready now.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James A. Robinson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:19 PM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>