activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From carbon60 <a...@sherman.ca>
Subject Re: Configuration Confusion
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:06:31 GMT


ttmdev wrote:
> 
> 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, 
> 

But the master/slave setup seems to cause a bottleneck with a single broker,
no? I would rather have multiple brokers sharing the load in a peer-to-peer
fashion.

Make sense?

Thanks,

A.


-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Configuration-Confusion-tp15982539s2354p16012390.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message