> So does that mean that -- after shutting down master and then slave -- it's not enough to start the slave again and that the master server must be then started as well?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the master and slave both go down then *administrative intervention* is required to ensure the most up-to-date data is used. The administrator will have to determine which broker went down last and then start that broker first. If the the last broker to go down was the slave then it will need to be reconfigured to be a master before it is restarted so that it will actually fully activate. Justin On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:36 AM Bummer <jen...@centrum.cz> wrote: > So does that mean that -- after shutting down master and then slave -- it's > not enough to start the slave again and that the master server must be then > started as well? Because, obviously, starting the master first isn't an > option as it might have older data than its slave, right? > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html >
