ActiveMQ allows pluggable storage lockers ( http://activemq.apache.org/pluggable-storage-lockers.html) which allow you to use a different technology for master election than you use for message storage. So the inability of a shared filesystem technology to provide distributed file locks isn't a deal breaker.
Tim On Apr 6, 2017 11:58 AM, "Steve Hill" <[email protected]> wrote: > I would suggest checking out something like GlusterFS which created > distributed replicated data. We have used it for high performant > applications without problem. I am not sure how the slave knows how to not > start - so this may not work for you if it is based on file locking. > > Thanks > Steve > > > > On Apr 6, 2017, at 7:29 AM, khandelwalanuj <anuj.cool.khandelwal@gmail. > com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I want to use ActiveMQ's master-slave topology where one broker is master > > and other attaches as a slave. But we don't have any shared file system > for > > it. I know one way to do this is with replicated levelDB but since it is > > deprecated, I don't want to go ahead with this. Is there any way we can > do > > this by KahaDB ? > > > > Thanks, > > Anuj > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/ActiveMQ-master-slave-with-data-replication-tp4724611.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
