Yeah, I guess doing it the way the website recommends is the correct method
to configure Master/Slave.
Thanks,
Ramit
Mike Miljour wrote:
>
> I just checked our logs, and I am seeing the same message about the Master
> not being able to connect to the slave. I will be removing the Network of
>
I just checked our logs, and I am seeing the same message about the Master
not being able to connect to the slave. I will be removing the Network of
Brokers setting form our config. We are using queues, not topics.
Thanks for pointing out the Network of Brokers issue! I forgot to check the
logs
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply. I think I understand the way you have set it up now,
but doesn't the slave just sit waiting for the lock to be released? As its
connectors are not yet started, the store & forward network can't be
established. My master keeps complaining that it can't connect to the
Yes, the /data is my shared directory. Persistence can be set up either way
according to the config examples I have seen.
I used the network of brokers to keep the slaves up to date when I was
originally having problems with the behavior of the slaves. I am not sure
if having this configured is
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your time. I am a bit confused here. The config that you have
sent me seeems to be of a broker network rather than a Master/Slave
topology. Shouldn't we be setting the shared datastore like this:
Is /data in your config the shared directory?
Thanks,
Ramit
Mik
Shared File System Master Slave does work for us. I have attached a sample
of our config for one of the brokers below.
http://activemq.org/config/1.0";
deleteAllMessagesOnStartup="true" dataDirectory="/data" persistent="true">
i hope this help
Hi,
I am facing a problem setting up shared file system master slave on the
latest 5.1 snapshot. The problems are mentioned in this thread
http://www.nabble.com/Shared-Filesystem-Master-Slave-doesn%27t-work-even-on-5.1-SNAPSHOT-td16315761s2354.html
Is master/slave working fine for you? Would you
will a fix be
ready?
Thanks,
Eric
Joe Fernandez wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Consumers not always being released
On 11 Mar 2008, at 19:55, Eric Rodriguez wrote:
Mike M
r/slave
>>> configuration but is this bug fixable and if so when will a fix be
>>> ready?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> Joe Fernandez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Rob
ed master/slave
configuration but is this bug fixable and if so when will a fix be ready?
Thanks,
Eric
Joe Fernandez wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Consumers not always being relea
g fixable and if so when will a fix be ready?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> Joe Fernandez wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM
>>> To: users@activ
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Consumers not always being released
On 11 Mar 2008, at 19:55, Eric Rodriguez wrote:
Mike Miljour wrote:
After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration
issue,
which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might
have
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Consumers not always being released
>
>
> On 11 Mar 2008, at 19:55, Eric Rodriguez wrote:
>
>
On 11 Mar 2008, at 19:55, Eric Rodriguez wrote:
Mike Miljour wrote:
After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration
issue,
which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might
have
helped if i had included my configuration as well!) We had set the
val
Mike Miljour wrote:
After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration issue,
which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might have
helped if i had included my configuration as well!) We had set the value
for broker name differently in our two running instan
After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration issue,
which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might have
helped if i had included my configuration as well!) We had set the value
for broker name differently in our two running instances of ActiveMQ. Doing
16 matches
Mail list logo
