+1
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
