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.