Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <10733990.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 02:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "James.Strachan" <james.strachan@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Master/Slave Configuration With Non-Persistence - 2 Brokers
 Starting Problem
In-Reply-To: <10329967.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <10329967.post@talk.nabble.com>


Franz Garsombke wrote:
> 
> I have a situation where we want to have a non-persistent topic and run a
> master/slave configuration with our brokers. The problem is that if we
> define the broker as non-persistent a broker is started on each server in
> our cluster. Without defining something like the jdbcPersistenceAdapter we
> lose the ability to have a true master/slave relationship where one broker
> is waiting to gain an exclusive lock on a database table...so they both
> startup.
> 
> Is there any way to define a jdbcPersistenceAdapter (to get a true
> master/slave relationship) but make our topic non-persistent?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Franz Garsombke
> 

If you are using non-persistent messaging and you are using topics; why do
you want to use master/slave? Why not just run 2 brokers in a network? Could
you maybe explain a bit more about what you are really trying to achieve?

-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Master-Slave-Configuration-With-Non-Persistence---2-Brokers-Starting-Problem-tf3694127s2354.html#a10733990
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.