You can attach JConsole to multiple JVMs (ActiveMQ or otherwise) at once, which might be what you want. It might even be better, because you can scroll to equivalent parts of both trees and see them side-by-side.
On Aug 18, 2016 8:06 AM, "mlange" <mla...@anwb.nl> wrote: > 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. >
