activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Gomes <e.se...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8
Date Thu, 08 Nov 2012 18:19:07 GMT
+1


On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree, it has not had much love over the past few releases and the
> implementation over a single channel will never scale, + there is the
> recovery problem.
>
> The theory is great though, no infrastructure required. We can maybe
> revisit this "feature" with a replicated memory store at some stage.
>
> +1
>
> It does keep popping up on the user list, so some folks will be
> surprised, but it is better that they go down the shared storage road
> from the start.
>
> On 8 November 2012 14:02, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8?
> >  Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation
> yet
> > I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to
> > it's limitations.  M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most
> > importantly very reliable.  So I think we clean house a remove this
> > 'feature'.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > **
> >
> > *Hiram Chirino*
> >
> > *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.*
> >
> > *hchirino@redhat.com <hchirino@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> *
> >
> > *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<
> http://twitter.com/hiramchirino>
> > *
> >
> > *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
>
>
>
> --
> http://redhat.com
> http://blog.garytully.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message