I agree, it has not had much love over the past few releases and the implementation over a single channel will never scale, + there is the recovery problem.
The theory is great though, no infrastructure required. We can maybe revisit this "feature" with a replicated memory store at some stage. +1 It does keep popping up on the user list, so some folks will be surprised, but it is better that they go down the shared storage road from the start. On 8 November 2012 14:02, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: > How do you guys feel about dropping pure master/slave support from 5.8? > Pure master/slave adds lots of complexity to the broker implementation yet > I've never been able to recommend anyone use it in production due to > it's limitations. M/S based on shared storage is fast, and most > importantly very reliable. So I think we clean house a remove this > 'feature'. > > > -- > > ** > > *Hiram Chirino* > > *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.* > > *[email protected] <[email protected]> | fusesource.com | redhat.com* > > *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino> > * > > *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>* -- http://redhat.com http://blog.garytully.com
