Thanks Gary. I can confirm that sending with transactions works perfectly but slower than AUTO for my scenario where messages are generated one by one and need to be sent one by one.
What are the disadvantages of disabling audit in kahadb (apart from the obvious - duplicates won't be suppressed)? Am I correct in assuming that composite destinations are not generally used when "zero tolerance for message loss" scenarios with audit enabled? The reason why I was implementing composite destinations (virtual topics in this case) was to make AMQ future proof, i.e. any other consumers implemented in the future that are interested in the same messages won't require reconfiguration & restart of the broker - they will just come in and start listening on a queue of their own backed by the Virtual Topic. An example of this might be a consumer that handles custom statistics or consumers for a separate system that are also interested in the same messages. How do you normally handle such situations? Will repeat my tests with maxFailoverProducersToTrack as soon as. Thanks again Gary Ozan -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Message-loss-in-network-of-brokers-transactional-send-tp3588714p3664704.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
