On 6/7/06, red3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your response, James. What are the known problems with the existing networks-of-brokers strategy
Its a long story; but basically lots of bugs have been fixed since 3.x
and why was it necessary to introduce the master-slave strategy?
Master/Slave is quite different to Networks. Networks are about storing and forwarding messages from broker to broker. Master/Slave is about replicating messages to a pair of brokers so that if a broker goes down the other is a hot standby and can failover fast (which seems to be what folks want most of the time). In the 3.x days folks would often use networks when they really wanted master/slave
What if we wanted more than two brokers in a master-slave configuration? Is this possible?
You can have pairs of master/slave brokers in a network. But we don't support more than 1 slave right now.
After a master goes down, how do you intend that it is restarted? Manually?
So the slave becomes the master automatically. If you want to bring the old master back online later on - it will be out of sync so you have to take the slave down, copy its files to the old master then restart the old master. Thats a manual process right now. -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
