I would vote to abandon it too, but doesn't it go hand in hand with partial queues? The whole idea of a partial queue is that all the partial queues together represent the whole. The message distribution is the method to simulate the entire queue. If you have a partial queue and there is no way to get to the messages in another partial queue, is it really a partial queue or just a stand alone queue that supports failover. So getting rid of message distribution breaks the whole, doesn't it. I think the whole idea of message distribution and partial queues goes hand in hand. If you get rid of one, you really have to get rid of the other don't you? I think this is why this topic got off subject early on, because intuitively have partial queues and message distribution between nodes linked. If we are going to support the connection round robin aspect of the clustered connection factory, we have to keep the message distribution. I mean it's possible that a producer could make 3 connections to nodes 1, 2, and 4. Now the client is completley unaware which servers in the cluster it's connected to(and it should be). Now a consumer uses the clustered connection factory and gets 3, 4, 5 as it's connections. If we don't have redistribution of messages, messages on 1 and 2 will be stranded wont they. Sorry if I'm being a little dense but....Partial queues and message distribution seem to be linked... So if we still have partial queues, I'd say that we can't really get rid of message distribution. Message distribution is what stitches the partials together to simulate the total queue, while allowing for performance driven locks and acks on a clustered node. Jay:) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4171298#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...