activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Network of Brokers
Date Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:53:21 GMT
The problem is that you're duplicating functionality.  The shared database
means that the two brokers share the information they are receiving by
placing it in a shared location, i.e. the database.  The Network of Brokers
is a different way of sharing the information between the brokers, by
transmitting the information using the configured network connectors.  It
doesn't make sense to do both, since you are sending information, using the
network connectors, to a stalled broker (the slave) that can't possibly do
anything with that information.
  (*Chris*)

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:28 AM, joesan <codeintheopen@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not with two hosts, but with two hosts and a shared database, I lock
> the
> second to a waiting state. I got the point. So my earlier understanding was
> correct that with a Master / Slave and a shared database lock, the slave
> will not start it's transport connectors and will wait for the lock.
>
> Like you now mention that I have to have two shared database and two nodes
> of Master / Slave, I can acheive NOB. The point is clarified.
>
> Thanks for helping me out!
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Network-of-Brokers-tp4655435p4655446.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message