activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ttmdev <>
Subject Re: Configuration Confusion
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:18:21 GMT

You can think of the peer connector as a superset of the VM connector. The
peer connector uses the VM connector to launch and connect to an 'embedded'
broker, but it also configures the embedded broker to establish network
connectors to other embedded brokers within the LAN subnet that have the
same peer group name. So for your fault-tolerance requirement I don't think
that a 'peer' connector is what you're looking for. Consider using the
'failover' connector - with randomization turned off - so that if your
master 'standalone' broker fails your Spring client can failover to the
slave broker. For example, 

<!-- Tell the JMS template how to connect to the broker -->
  <bean id="connectionFactory"
    <property name="brokerURL"   

Goto for a free ActiveMQ user guide

carbon60 wrote:
> carbon60 wrote:
>> On 11-Mar-08, at 10:01 AM, James Strachan wrote:
>>>> I need to configure my brokers to fault-tolerant in a two-node
>>>> cluster. I'm configuring this directly inside Spring.
>>>> I believe I need to use some form of auto-discovery, journaled
>>>> persistence and clustering, but after reading most of the
>>>> documentation I'm not clear on the exact setup I should be using.  
>>> So for clustering you need master/slave which ensures messages are
>>> stored on different physical devices to protect against loss
>> So a network of brokers sharing the load is not appropriate in my  
>> situation?
> From the documentation, it seems like the peer:// URI is what I need? I
> tried that in my current config and received a "This protocol does not
> support being bound" IOException.
> Thanks,
> A.

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

View raw message