It was a human (mine) error; I modified it... apologies if I had you thinking it was a typo in the default. I had been fiddling around... and have been even more:
I now realized a few things; The bind error I had earlier, which caused me to think the problem was the port, actually was not the port, but the path "/jmxrmi"; When I changed that on the second broker it could bind. But then the other (logical) problem arose when I restarted the first broker... then the jmx for broker2 could no longer be found... besides, both brokers would never end up in the same jmx connection (e.g. jconsole); The thing I was trying to accomplish was getting one jmx mbean server to "rule" all brokers (even remote ones) so I would have a single point of management (restarting, memory usage, cpu utilization, etc) I'm getting to the conclusion this will not be possible... although it would really be cool to have such a thing :-) -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/What-is-the-proper-way-to-configure-multiple-brokers-on-the-same-machine-in-regard-to-jmx-tp4715589p4715636.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
