; more in line with best practices, if any exist? From our position of
> relative ignorance this seemed like the way to set things up, but I'd be
> happy to rework things.
>
> Thanks again for your help on this.
>
> Steph
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in contex
this seemed like the way to set things up, but I'd be
happy to rework things.
Thanks again for your help on this.
Steph
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-Java-level-deadlock-tp4705128p4705183.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing
gt; As an addendum, that deadlock occurred only on the 03 node, and once that
> one
> node was bounced, traffic is able to flow again.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-Java-level-deadlock-tp4705128p4705134.ht
As an addendum, that deadlock occurred only on the 03 node, and once that one
node was bounced, traffic is able to flow again.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-Java-level-deadlock-tp4705128p4705134.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User
:745)
Found 1 deadlock.
For what it's worth, we're not sending a huge amount of data around.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-failover-Java-level-deadlock-tp4705128.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
