activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From RichStephens <>
Subject Master/Slave mode - slave never taking over
Date Mon, 03 May 2010 18:54:41 GMT

We are currently using ActiveMQ 5.3.1 in a "pure Master/Slave" configuration. 
We have one broker, set up as "producer", that receives messages from java
and C++ clients.  This broker forwards all messages to another broker,
called "consumer", which is set up as the master in a pure "Master/Slave"
configuration.  We have java clients connected both the "consumer" and the
"slave" broker to pull those messages, so we don't have a situation of the
brokers getting "filled up", as it were.

What we are seeing is this:  The "producer" is forwarding messages to the
"consumer" broker, and the "slave" broker is properly replicating those
messages that its master, the "consumer" broker is receiving.  However, if
we shut down the "master", the "slave" should finish replicating all the
messages it got from the master "consumer" broker, and then take over to
"become" the master.  What we are seeing is that once the last messages from
the "consumer" broker have been replicated, the "slave" broker never
actually takes over and begins processing messages.  The flow of messages
from client->producer broker->slave broker just STOPS.

The configuration file on the slave broker has the following setting:

 <broker xmlns="" brokerName="slave"
            <masterConnector remoteURI= "tcp://"
userName="system" password="manager"/>

We have tried different configuration settings on the master "consumer"
broker, like these:

 <networkConnector name="producer"

 <networkConnector name="producer"
userName="system" password="manager">

These are all 3 separate Centos Linux 5.4 instances, from a "cloud" server
provider (

The system performs as expected until the master "consumer" broker actually
goes down and the "slave" takeover is supposed to happen.

We really need to get this working, and are so far stumped.  Any thoughts or
ideas would be welcome.

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

View raw message