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 this caused the ActiveMQs to act as though they were load balancing instead of acting as Master and slave (which was our intent).
Suggested documentation changes:In the schema reference for brokerName, change the description from: Sets the name of this broker; which must be unique in the network to: Sets the name of this broker; which must be unique in the network, except for master-slave configurations, where it must be the same Also, in the master slave shared file system documentation, include a note stating that the WebConsole will not load for the slave until it becomes the master if the setup is done correctly. Also mention that the value for brokerName must be the same for the master and all slaves. We are not sure why we would sometimes have 3 consumers in one queue in one instance of AMQ and one in the same queue of the other instance of AMQ (there should have been 2 in each). With the correct master-slave setup now, we no longer have a problem. Mike M -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Consumers-not-always-being-released-tp15818936s2354p15963463.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
