Since I posted this message, we haven't had a recurrence, though we haven't done much yet and are probably just lucky.
I'm pondering moving all of our camel routes out of the embedded broker configuration we have now to a separate JVM. If we do this, and we configure the brokerURL as you suggest: brokerURL="failover:tcp://master:61616,tcp://slave:61616" then what would happen if one of the routes lost it's consumer? What I would want would be for it to failover the entire broker, not just the one consumer. We are also considering keeping camel embedded, but using brokerURL="failover:vm://radar-broker,vm://radar-broker" Another idea we have is to move all our single threaded consumers to a SEDA model. Is the thread pool management within the SEDA component rich enough to respond to a vanishing thread by spawning a new one eventually? What I'd like is to set an "at least" thread count to say 4, and an "up to" thread count to say 10. Can it do this? Hopefully in this case the lost consumer would simply be recreated later. I'm not terribly concerned about an occasional lost message. James.Strachan wrote: > > After this failure, has the master/slave failed over? Its not clear if > its the camel in the master or camel in the slave which is having > issues? > > To avoid such issues I'd suggest using the broker URL > > failover:tcp://master:61616,tcp://slave:61616 > > if you want both sets of camel routes to keep running. > > Note that the vm transport ignores the master/slave configuration in > ActiveMQ; so the camel route will not failover to the new master > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Activemq-Consumers-Vanish-tp21062377s22882p21254524.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.