activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From DavidR <>
Subject Re: temporary queue in store and forward environment
Date Sun, 29 Apr 2007 08:05:51 GMT

Ok, so if we go back to Master Slave, then we have the following issue:
Currently we are using the JDBC Master Slave but we see this uses a lot of
So, we would want to go to pure Master Slave.
So, can you help us understand the following: It says in the docs that if
one goes down "A failed master cannot be re-introduced without shutting down
the the slave broker". Can it be re-introduced as a slave without any
restart of the running queue? Also, if the slave had items in the queue not
processes and then came up as slave, what would happen with those messages?


James.Strachan wrote:
> On 4/25/07, DavidR <> wrote:
>> >If you want clustering (high availability and failover of brokers) you
>> >really should use Master/Slave instead of Networks...
>> >
>> Thanks for your quick response.  We like the jdbc master slave but were
>> concerned about the CPU hit we saw on our database (oracle). The pure
>> masterslave seems to be problematic in terms of loss of messages if
>> primary
>> goes down, so we thought store and forward would be best. Are we
>> misunderstanding something here?
> Yes. Store and forward does not replicate messages at all; a message
> is owned by only one broker at any point in time.
> So a store and forward network is not too different from running a
> single broker from a reliability perpective.
> -- 
> James
> -------

View this message in context:
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

View raw message