Just re-discovered this... I tested this scenario with 2.4.0 and the attached configs, and I couldn't make it fail like described in the original message. Fail-over and fail-back worked without any of the issues described.
> To us, this meant that the current master (which was the original slave) in the first group, although acting as the master, does not vote in case a quorum voting is initiated in the cluster. Is that correct? That's not correct. It should vote (and did so in my tests). > Does this imply that the cluster always have to be back to the initial state (as in step 0 above) in order for the failover to take place for any master slave pair? No. Justin On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:34 AM Bummer <jen...@centrum.cz> wrote: > Have you resolved the issue somehow? > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html >
