Not sure why shared file system would be "unreliable" in your case. We have hundreds of clients with very stringent reliability and availability requirements that use it.
If you don't want them to share a store, your best bet is to achieve what you're looking for is to check out replicated leveldb: http://activemq.apache.org/replicated-leveldb-store.html It's not available until 5.9, but you can check out a nightly snappy here: http://repository.apache.org/service/local/artifact/maven/redirect?r=snapshots&g=org.apache.activemq&a=apache-activemq&v=5.9-SNAPSHOT&e=tar.gz&c=bin On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Killhoven <killho...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am literally interested in a reliable system: two separate stand-alone > PC-s > (they can be in the same LAN if needed), all traffic goes trough both (they > do not share any resource like database, file system). In a moment master > fails, slave takes over. When Master comes up, it will resync and take > over. > > Options like Multicast, JDBC, shared file system etc are not reliable.. > > If I configure the networkConnectors and transportConnectors to use IP > addresses instead of the term localhost, It could work? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/AMQ-failover-using-different-PCs-tp4666568p4667078.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- *Christian Posta* http://www.christianposta.com/blog twitter: @christianposta
