On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:58 AM, jessezbj <jesse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the newest version 5.4.2
>
> I tested with two brokers with the same names but different ports on one
> machine.
>
> It seems work.
>
> Are the broker names required to be different?
>
> what about other settings?
>
> I am wondering if I can use only one configuration file for all brokers
> (assuming I am using multi-cast and auto-discovery) ?
>
> ActiveMQ in Action says unique broker names are for handling the situation
> that "it's highly possible (and quite
> probable) that two or more ActiveMQ instances will connect to one another
> and begin consuming one another's messages."
>
> But I don't quite understand the problem under this situation.
>
> Could anyone here give a detailed explanation?
I wrote that portion of the ActiveMQ In Action book, so I will explain
it a bit more.
In a local network setting, if a given broker's address is advertised
over multicast, brokers can and will automatically connect to one
another to form a broker network. If two developers start ActiveMQ
message brokers for their development on the same network but
different machines, and they do not intend for these two brokers to
connect to one another but each broker is configured to advertise
their address over multicast, this can cause big problems that can be
difficult to troubleshoot. One thing that can make this
troubleshooting easy is to make sure that each broker uses a unique
broker name.
As for sharing a single configuration file to configure all brokers,
this is not advisable because of possible unique settings such as
broker name, data directory path, ActiveMQ home and base, etc.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
