I think that's kinda funny, really. ActiveMQ's website has a warning about potential problems with locking under NFSv3, http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html and IBM MQ's similar "multi-instance" mode *requires* NFSv4 for "proper lock handling."
I only briefly tested AMQ's master-slave using NFSv3 and it worked well-enough in simple test cases. FWIW, we ended up going with a single server so we could use the SAN directly and relied on VmWare for a relatively quick recovery from a server failure. -----Original Message----- From: johneboyer [mailto:johnboye...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:04 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Feasibility of Shared File System Master Slave using NFSv4 I’m planning to implement the shared file system master slave using NFSv4 on Ubuntu (lucid) server. However, my Linux consultant is telling me that it’s not going to work and has refused to waste time setting it up because he says the exclusive locking will not work. Is he correct? Does anyone have experience successfully configuring shared file system master slave using NFSv4? Thank you for your time. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Feasibility-of-Shared-File-System-Master-Slave-using-NFSv4-tp3536513p3536513.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ----------------------------------------- ***Note:The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Premier Inc.
