Clearly your master brokers have "master" in the name; do your slaves have "slave" in the name when viewed in JMX? That was the question I was asking.
Have you confirmed (via ps -ef or something similar) that no other processes are running ActiveMQ on the host in question? And are you running any clients that might be creating embedded brokers? Have you tested what happens if you only start one master/slave pair? Is that enough to make them unhappy, or does it require both pairs before you see a problem? Tim On Jul 1, 2015 9:02 AM, "softwbc" <soft...@163.com> wrote: > sorry! I mean second parts.Here is my application structure. > < > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4698434/%E6%B6%88%E6%81%AF%E5%B9%B3%E5%8F%B0%E6%9C%80%E7%BB%88%E7%BB%93%E6%9E%84ENG.jpg > > > > And I confirmed that the configuration is in effect. > <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4698434/1.png> > <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4698434/2.png> > > Any other ideas? > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Using-Broker-clusters-javax-management-InstanceAlreadyExistsException-xx-tp4698127p4698434.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
