Hi all,
Crazy thoughts going thru my head lately… :eek:
What is the largest single broker territory anyone has created? Total number of brokers? Number of physical ‘sites’ (not just hosts)?
Is anyone aware of some kind of upper limit? in either the number of brokers? or the distance a ‘site’ can be from others?
Thanks!!
Ray
Guess this one needs to be filed under ‘too nuts’, huh?
This answer is pretty much obsolete, since i don’t think anyone really uses territories much anymore, but…
The most brokers i have ever seen in a territory is seven. There are problems with territories that create performance issues, particularly with guaranteed information that must be propagated to all subscribing brokers within a territory. One client i had – the same one with seven brokers in a territory, had all seven brokers on the same broker server. This was a major problem, since broker servers have one guaranteed storage system (and swap file). By having all the brokers on the same broker server in the same territory, the effective space in the guaranteed storage system was reduced by a factor of seven (More generally, 1/the number of brokers). They routinely overran their swap space, crashing the brokers, and corrupting the guaranteed storage file. There was also some isolated problems where a subscription on one broker in this territory would become “ignored” and the only solution we found was to rebuild the broker from the ground up.
To answer your other question, i saw a client with about forty brokers on about six machines.
No distance limit (as long as we are confined to the Earth).
Territories and multiple brokers can become very complicated, both to coordinate, install, and maintain. Many clients use a monolithic broker to keep things simple, and most of the time, i agree with them that one large broker box (plus optional clustering) with one broker, is the right solution.
Nope… Territories alive and well in my environment… I swear by them - literally some times… 
I have come across this too… but due to gateways. It was as if the gateway lost the subscription information. Using static forwarding seems to have addressed this (in 6.1 - we just started moving to 6.5, so still need to see if there are any issues waiting to pop up)
Cool to know… I’ve since tossed my idea on the scrap pile of ideas… but nice to know. I think wM told me 7 was the high watermark…
We had to go multiple broker… was the only way (back in the day) that folks felt comfortable… multiple brokers kept data isolated… imagine that requirement these days… :eek:
But seriously… having multiple brokers has been very well received… limiting broker outage impacts is the big ‘plus’…