I just had a question.Is it not possible to enable persistence in the configuration of the broker, but actually not persist any message? In that case, we'll have the advantage of HA with the slave coming up automatically, and also have the advantage of having multiple slaves. These two are the major advantages one can get over a Pure Master/Slave configuration. Also, are there any downsides of this approach?
Thanks, Viswanath James.Strachan wrote: > > On 09/12/2007, hagai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I am trying to use the "Shared File System Master Slave" configuration, >> and >> I have a few questions: >> >> 1. I don't want to use persistency. Is that possible using this >> configuration? I am asking this since the example in >> http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html uses the >> persistencyAdapter's properties for configuring the shared file for the >> master-slave. > > Shared File/Database based Master Slave only work for persistent > messaging. > > If you don't want persistence, try Pure Master Slave (or even just > failover on the client). > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://open.iona.com > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/High-availability-and-persistency-tp14240560s2354p14249528.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
