Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of xleyba@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.193 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=aIBO+pDFJvs1WBib6oivEA5nJfOQQHfCwuzmjoQpR6ZwKcdbaBr1Kh+hOOcvrn9hcLKg0i8Q551/z+UlpM4CChcJ5lx8y1XJs/UJGoOWp31tOrw2DCV175EVsCugK2wGKuQ/2g7Md5NHxTqObmGZSfGq8BCdr5SG6wZNLmDz5Uw=
Message-ID: <933f2a180605090547l67b1f6aer2c50d01fb9cb8aad@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:47:18 +0200
From: "Javier Leyba" <xleyba@gmail.com>
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: q: could not connect to local URI: vm:?network=true...
In-Reply-To: <20060509110542.30359.qmail@web53610.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <933f2a180605090136i5bfb2b26sc3ab7a314cd777da@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060509110542.30359.qmail@web53610.mail.yahoo.com>

On 5/9/06, Paul Tomsic <ptomsic@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Your brokers are named in WHAT way?  what solved your
> problem?  renaming your brokers?  what did you rename
> them to?
>
> are you able to start more than 2 in a cluster?
> would you mind posting your startup xml file, please?
>
>


Ouch, sorry, let me explain.

I'm having the problem about the journal in use since january (AFAIR)
and never get help to the get the solution.

One month ago I downlaoded RC2 and changed my config files and the
problem was apparently solved. But few days ago I started to configure
network connectors and the problem comes back again.

Now I've saw this post and noticed that my brokers are named with an
underscore ie: brokerName=3D"MASTER_UBUNTU" then I changed to
brokerName=3D"MASTERUBUNTU" and the problem is solved.

Currently, my scenario consist in two servers (two physical different
machines) running JBoss with a Master/Slave brokers. Each one has a
master server and the slave of the other one to allow HA availability.

Nevertheless, after receive your mail I started a master broker and a
slave broker in the same machine, same JBoss instance, without
problems.


J


--
Javier Leyba
Barcelona - Spain
http://blog.leyba.com.ar