On 12/12/06, Anthrope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for this information; it clarifies things. On to the next question
now. I was able to get ActiveMQ to use a MySQL repository, and noticed that
there were three tables created:
ACTIVEMQ_ACKS
ACTIVEMQ_LOCK
activemq_msgs
Looks about right.
I ran a producer and dumped 10 messages onto a queue (without consuming
them), but saw nothing in the activemq_msgs table.
You're definitely using the <jdbcPersistenceAdapter/> element right?
i.e. not using the journal
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/jdbc-master-slave.html
I assume this is probably
because the server caches a certain amount before needing to use the
database. What I was a bit surprised by was the fact that there was one row
in the ACTIVEMQ_LOCK table (which has 3 columns, ID, TIME and BROKER_NAME),
which had 1 for the ID column, and NULLs for TIME and BROKER_NAME columns.
Is that what we ought to expect?
Yeah, that sounds right.
If it is, then I'd hazard a guess that each
broker will have to have its own database instance. Is that correct?
Each group of 1 master and N slaves shares a single database instance.
Or another way of saying that is each master requires its own database
instance
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
