From activemq-users-return-1925-apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org Mon Jun 12 14:42:19 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 56606 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2006 14:42:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Jun 2006 14:42:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 36816 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jun 2006 14:42:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 36800 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jun 2006 14:42:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 36791 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jun 2006 14:42:18 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:42:18 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [208.176.63.109] (HELO localhost.ldsys.net) (208.176.63.109) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:42:17 -0700 Received: from [10.0.2.1] (adsl-71-143-209-211.dsl.chcgil.sbcglobal.net [71.143.209.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by localhost.ldsys.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1CD4690B for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:46:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <448D7D2A.1040804@ldsys.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:41:46 -0500 From: "Christopher G. Stach II" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060603) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Recovering after failure in Master/Slave configuration References: <4823862.post@talk.nabble.com> <4824942.post@talk.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N James Strachan wrote: > On 6/12/06, ENP wrote: >> >> Need I do the same if a master goes absent due to network failure and >> clients >> reconnect to slave? > > Yes - any disconnection of the master is considered a failure of the > master. > As I learned in a similar thread, this is actually "any disconnection of the master FROM THE SLAVE is considered a failure of the master." This is because the slave doesn't accept connections until the master disappears. So, just because the clients can't reach the master does it mean that they will successfully switch to the slave. -- Christopher G. Stach II