> I DON'T want persistent messaging via KhahaDB (or jdbc). I don't want to introduce a database, a NAS or shared folders (I'm on windows).
You could move to Artemis and use the network replication functionality which doesn't use a database, NAS, etc. The only concern here is with split brain which is hard to mitigate with just 2 nodes. > I DO want in memory behavior similar to it, where two brokers share their messages (in memory) so that if both brokers die, messages can be lost. In-memory, non-durable messages are, by definition, volatile which means even with Artemis' network replication those messages won't be replicated. However, the client and broker can be tuned so that you can achieve nearly the same performance with durable messages (assuming that's your concern). See more about that here [1]. Justin P.S. You didn't answer my previous question about "prime-time" Artemis [1] https://blogs.apache.org/activemq/entry/fast_messaging_with_artemis On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:06 AM, pypen <py...@gmx.net> wrote: > :) > You are right. And you are wrong. > I DON'T want persistent messaging via KhahaDB (or jdbc). I don't want to > introduce a database, a NAS or shared folders (I'm on windows). > I DO want in memory behavior similar to it, where two brokers share their > messages (in memory) so that if both brokers die, messages can be lost. > > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User- > f2341805.html >
