That's exactly what I tried to do. I mark all the messages as non persistent using messageProducer.setDeliveryMode(DeliveryMode.NON_PERSISTENT) but it seems that the broker does use persistency on these messages because the log files are updated. Am I missing something?
Hagai. Viswanath Durbha wrote: > > 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-tp14240560s2354p14249961.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
