Hi,
For my AMQ cluster, I currently have two hosts available. I want high
availability & high performance (so that applications running on the two
hosts always can access a broker running on the same machine during normal
operation), so I set up two "Master/Slave" pairs on the two hosts so that
every host contains a master broker & a slave broker (that points to the
master on the other host):
Host1: {Master_Host1, Slave_Host2}
Host2: {Master_Host2, Slave_Host1}
The Master/Slave-Topology is implemented using a shared File System &
KahaDB.
So far, so good.
The problem is:
If both systems are down, and I start up host1, for example, than the AMQ
instance "Slave_Host2" becomes a "master" (because Host2 isn't actually
there, so the "Slave_host2" instance grabs the lock on the KahaDB).
So I end up with one host running two master instances and one host running
two slave instances (which isn't what I want :)).
My Network connectors look something like this:
*Master_Host1*
*Slave_Host2*
(Host2 does not have configured network connectors)
Am I doing something wrong here? Does my scenario make sense, or is it
better to just go with host1 running only a master and host2 running only a
slave?
Thanks in advance,
Joerg
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Two-Master-Slave-Pairs-tp4721275.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
