The brokers are standalone, not master/slave so it looks like there may need to be a short outage while we upgrade. Does anyone else have this configuration that has upgraded? Is there anyway around taking an outage?
On 10/20/14, 6:19 PM, "artnaseef" <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote: >Yeah, it should work fine. Just keep in mind that messages on a broker >are >only reactively moved to another broker, and they only ever live on a >single >broker at a time (for the most part). > >So, shutting down a broker with messages that have not drained will either >lose those messages (for non-persistent messages, including Topic and temp >dest messages) or delay their delivery (persistent messages). > >To drain messages, it is possible to kick off the clients from the broker >by >stopping the transport connector for the clients and then give bridges >time >to drain the messages (i.e. forward them to other brokers). However, this >most likely requires prior planning so that the transport connector for >clients and for network bridges are separated. Otherwise, a separate tool >to bridge the messages would be needed. > >Are the brokers in the network all stand-alone without H/A, or are they >all >in master/slave clusters as well? If master/slave, then upgrading the >master will result in the slave becoming active, reducing the delay in >delivering persistent messages. > > > >-- >View this message in context: >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/5-9-to-5-10-Upgrade-tp4686426p468656 >6.html >Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
