Torsten, I really appreciate your advice. To be honest, we came to the same conclusion originally, but master/slave seems to be doing buggy things, which is one reason why I've been motivated to move away from it.
I sent an email to this list about the bugs, trying to figure out if what I was seeing was legit or not, but I never got a reply. I understand the nature of this list...you get what you pay for and all that...but if you guys have time to take a look at the master/slave issue I'm seeing, and at least sanity check the config, that would be much appreciated! http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Slave-not-replicating-consumption-with-Pure-Master-Slave-td3767086.html I'll revive that thread in case email is easier. Thanks! On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Torsten Mielke-2 [via ActiveMQ] < ml-node+3798076-2111902585-140...@n4.nabble.com> wrote: > If you want to achieve fault tolerance with failover, then master/slave is > the way to go. > Using a network of brokers your clients can still failover to another > broker instance in the cluster but the state of each broker will not get > replicated across your network. Every broker will have its own state and > clients that failover to a different broker instance in the network might > not receive all msgs. > > Broker networks are rather used for load balancing and scaling and are > not/less suitable for fault tolerance and high availability. > > > Torsten Mielke > [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3798076&i=0> > [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3798076&i=1> > > > On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:47 PM, dcheckoway wrote: > > > Thanks Gary. > > > > I'm considering switching a master/slave setup (in which the master is > > stock, out of the box, config) over to network of brokers. Based on your > > > reply, it sounds like I can simply reconfigure the slave -- changing it > from > > slaving to using a duplex networkConnector -- and I won't have to touch > the > > existing master. It will automatically change its role to become a > member > > of the 2-node network. > > > > My goal, fwiw, is to better utilize the 2nd node (currently just sitting > > there slaving with no producers/consumers connected) and to move away > from > > master/slave. > > > > Does all of this sound sane, or am I slightly off the mark in terms of > how > > I'm going about it? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Preferred-config-for-2-node-network-of-brokers-tp3795676p3798076.html > To unsubscribe from Preferred config for 2-node network of brokers?, click > here<http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=3795676&code=ZGNoZWNrb3dheUBnbWFpbC5jb218Mzc5NTY3Nnw3MDc4NzEwMTU=>. > > ----- Dan Checkoway dcheckoway gmail com -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Preferred-config-for-2-node-network-of-brokers-tp3795676p3798602.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
