ttmdev wrote: > > You can think of the peer connector as a superset of the VM connector. The > peer connector uses the VM connector to launch and connect to an > 'embedded' broker, but it also configures the embedded broker to establish > network connectors to other embedded brokers within the LAN subnet that > have the same peer group name. So for your fault-tolerance requirement I > don't think that a 'peer' connector is what you're looking for. Consider > using the 'failover' connector - with randomization turned off - so that > if your master 'standalone' broker fails your Spring client can failover > to the slave broker. For example, >
But the master/slave setup seems to cause a bottleneck with a single broker, no? I would rather have multiple brokers sharing the load in a peer-to-peer fashion. Make sense? Thanks, A. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Configuration-Confusion-tp15982539s2354p16012390.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
