Thanks for replying.
If I take off the either the failover or the useAsyncSend, it will work.
Basically I can't use both at once.
There is some mention of the problem here too:
http://thiamteck.blogspot.com/2008/09/activemq-failover-with-async-send.html
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.a
By the way, I am currently using ActiveMQ 5.1.0
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Failover-with-useAsyncSend-tp19746435p19759364.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Well I've figured out the problem. I'll post the solution to help other slow
learners like myself.
This is wrong:
failover:(tcp://localhost:61616?jms.useAsyncSend=true)
This is right:
failover:(tcp://localhost:61616)?jms.useAsyncSend=true
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Fa
If I run start consuming messages from a queue using receive and then
manually close the broker (with another thousand messages left in the queue)
I get a warning that the failover is attempting to reconnect. Once I reboot
ActiveMQ then I am notified that the failover reconnected. However, I will
I haven't tried the lastest snapshot, but it's not too big of an issue in my
case where things are constantly being published. I just couldn't find any
mentions of it and was wondering if it was something I was doing wrong.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Bad-Failover-Beha
down (even though the page says "The failover transport
uses random by default which lets you to load balance clients over a number
of brokers.")
Thanks,
SarcasmMonster
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Loadbalancing-MessageProducer-tp20189528p20189528.html
Se
The point was to load balance the JMS broker, that way we don't hammer the
same broker with thousands of messages a second, but rather distribute the
load between multiple brokers. Thanks for replying :)
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> 2008/10/27 SarcasmMonster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I came across the fanout protocol while looking for the failover. But from my
understanding, it will send every message to every broker, rather than
rotating between them. So when I send a message, it will go to every broker,
rather than just a random one. Is this right?
--
View this message in c
