Thanks, Johan. You'll be happy to hear that we've ditched the idea of Pure Master/Slave once and for all :-)
It seems from the docs (http://activemq.apache.org/kahadb-master-slave.html) that there's some sort of configuration using ZooKeeper that's possible; any thoughts on this? Keith -----Original Message----- From: Johan Edstrom [mailto:seij...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:43 AM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: KahaDB Master/Slave? Same thing. Just different persistence adapters, KahaDB is the "preferred" one, it recovers much faster. http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html Hey Keith :) On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Keith Mann wrote: > We are developing our ActiveMQ architecture and we are hoping to understand > how we might evolve it as ActiveMQ continues to develop. Can anyone comment > on the status of KahaDB Master Slave, and/or on its benefits versus Shared > File System Master Slave? I've been unable to find much in the way of details > on the subject. > > Thanks in advance, > > Keith Mann > IT Architect (SOA) > 407 ETR
