git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Designing for maximum Artemis performance


Since you are on EC2? Why do you need a backup? Wouldn't a Storage
give you what you need in terms of Cloud? if the server is gone. .you
just start it again with the same cloud storage?
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:22 AM schalmers
<simon.chalmers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am using AWS and paying for three EC2 instances (the 'servers'). I am
> deploying a server in each AWS Availability Zone (AZ) and in the region I am
> using there are 3 AZ. I am running three servers with a master (as part of a
> cluster) on each, to maximum performance of the applications connecting to
> Artemis.
>
> For arguments sake, let's assume I can get performance of 200MB/s on _each_
> server. So a maximum of 600MB/s across the whole 'environment'.
>
> Consider the following setup:
>
> - server1 in AZ1: Master-1, Slave-3, Backup-2
> - server2 in AZ2: Master-2, Slave-1, Backup-3
> - server3 in AZ3: Master-3, Slave-2, Backup-1
>
> In the scenario I'm trying to design for is the lose of a server or AZ. At
> the moment, if I lost server1, then:
>
> - server2 (initially as slave-1) would become master-1.
> - server3 (initially as backup-1) would become slave-1.
>
> When server1 comes back online, because server2 is now master-1 and server3
> is slave-1, it would just remain as an idle-backup. That is: there would no
> longer be ANY masters running on server1.
>
> At the moment, the result of this is:
>
> - I'm paying for 3 servers, but only 2 are performing the roles of master
> (server2 is master-1 and master-2 and server3 is master-3).
> - I can only get the performance out of 2 servers and not 3, i.e. 400MB/s
> and not 600MB/s.
>
> So my questions are:
>
> 1) Is the only way to ensure that server1 becomes the master-1 is by
> manually restarting the brokers on each server, to return them to their
> original master/slave/backup state?
>
> 2) If a manual restart of the brokers is the only way to restore them to
> their original state and have a master on each server per AZ, would it be
> desirable to allow for fail back to work across live and multiple backups?
>
> 3) If not, how else might I achieve ensuring that there is a always a master
> on each server, across each AZ?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html



-- 
Clebert Suconic