We would heavily prefer a shared-nothing architecture, and so for this reason are not considering a "shared backend" scenario.
I had not considered a network of Master/Slave brokers, would this look, in a two machine configuration, something like: MACHINE1: MQ-A-PRIMARY MQ-B-BACKUP MACHINE2: MQ-A-BACKUP MQ-B-PRIMARY Where backups would be configured as normal and all servers would be configured as a network of brokers. Clients would have a connection string like "failover://(tcp://MQ-A-PRIMARY:PORT,tcp://MQ-B-PRIMARY:PORT,tcp://MQ-A-BACKUP:PORT,tcp://MQ-B-BACKUP:PORT)" Would this be a minimal HA cluster? Incidentally, the "topology" section of the site was not necessarily crystal clear as to what a typical configuration would look like. I would think something like a list of use-cases, with a diagram of the topology and some lniks to .conf files for each would be VERY beneficial. IE, if you are looking for HA, do X; if you are looking for highly scalable read-infrastructure, do Y; etc. Just a suggestion, ignore at will ;-) Thanks for the help regardless. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/HA-features---limitations-tf2069049.html#a5710116 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
