[rabbitmq-discuss] Broker failover
niko.felger at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 20 11:09:32 BST 2009
Thanks a lot for all this info!
Is there a way to achieve some of this in a clustered setup? I guess our
requirements are not so much HA of the whole messaging subsystem, but rather
that an as-large-as-possible proportion of messages gets processed
_eventually_. The scenario I am mainly worried about is when producers
suddenly cannot publish anymore because the server has gone away and thus
any messages are lost at that point.
We tried using a dumb load balancer (in front of both producers and
consumers) to achieve this, but so far this has caused us more trouble than
it saved, see here:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 15:45, Matthew Sackman <matthew at lshift.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:41:59PM +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> > Therefore, if HA and failover is important to you, we'd recommend the
> > following:
> One further issue with this is that it means really all the nodes need
> to manually be configured the same, in terms of queues, exchanges and
> bindings. As producers don't know which node they're connected to, this
> really demands that:
> a) Every producer can attempt configuration whenever it connects; or
> b) As consumers may need to be connected to every node, they could do
> the configuration, as they're not in front of the load balancer; or
> c) You have some other process that does configuration.
> This is definitely one area where the clustered setup saves you effort
> as all nodes implicitly get configured in the same way.
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss