Re: Designing for maximum Artemis performance
> The master/slave/slave triplet architecture complicates fail-back quite a
> bit and it's not something the broker handles gracefully at this point.
> I'd recommend against using it for that reason.
Would it be desirable for Artemis to support this functionality in the
future though, i.e. if we raised it as a feature request?
> To Clebert's point...I also don't understand why you wouldn't let the
> infrastructure deal with spinning up another live node when one fails. I
> was under the impression that's kind of what clouds are for.
The cloud can manage spinning up another node, but the problem is
telling/getting the Artemis cluster to make that server the master now. From
what I've read and been told, there's no way to failback to the master when
there is already a backup for the (new) master.
That's what I'm looking for help on and were my original questions.
If the position from Artemis is that there's no desire for Artemis to ever
work that way, even if we ask/raise a feature request, then we just need to
understand that so we can make design decisions in our application stack to
cater for that.
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html