I have a question along these lines, you said here that there's no mechanism
to do real time broker-broker synchronization.
Does that imply that when starting up a master slave system, you must start
both the master and the slave before any clients start sending messages? Or
if the master is up
On 4/29/07, DavidR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, so if we go back to Master Slave, then we have the following issue:
Currently we are using the JDBC Master Slave but we see this uses a lot of
CPU.
So, we would want to go to pure Master Slave.
So, can you help us understand the following: It say
rom running a
> single broker from a reliability perpective.
>
> --
> James
> ---
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/temporary-queue-in-store-and-forward-environment-tf3644667s2354.html#a10239814
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 4/25/07, DavidR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you want clustering (high availability and failover of brokers) you
>really should use Master/Slave instead of Networks...
>http://activemq.apache.org/masterslave.html
Thanks for your quick response. We like the jdbc master slave but were
conc
ne does not.
We have 2 queues on 2 machines and 2 consumer processes on the 2 machines.
If one consumer goes down, we would want the messages to not get posted
there. So, we think clustering is the answer.
David
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/temporary-queue-in-store-and-
On 4/25/07, DavidR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
we are trying to use ActiveMQ clustering using store and forward.
If you want clustering (high availability and failover of brokers) you
really should use Master/Slave instead of Networks...
http://activemq.apache.org/masterslave.html
we se
ext:
http://www.nabble.com/temporary-queue-in-store-and-forward-environment-tf3644667s2354.html#a10178562
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
