[rabbitmq-discuss] Active/Active failover
alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Wed Dec 30 10:45:12 GMT 2009
CC'ing the list - assuming you prefer that :-)
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM, vishnu <pathsny at gmail.com> wrote:
> well its important to us to know that is possible if we need it sometime in
> the future. In the short term we're quite likely to go with active/passive
Yes it is, and yes that is a good plan.
> So does that just mean, mounting a disk for use on a queue that can be
> remounted on a seperate system?
Currently it combines:
- TCP loadbal
- OS level heartbeats
- A safe, reasonably fast, shared disk store
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Alexis Richardson
> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> At the moment: You need to set up two brokers with the same exchanges,
>> queues and bindings, and send every message through both. You then
>> need a way to dedup. This is somewhat complex, and usually
>> active/passive is preferred.
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, vishnu <pathsny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > While reading the how to's on the faq page at
>> > http://www.rabbitmq.com/faq.html
>> > there's a contact us link that talks about building active/active
>> > failover.
>> > Could someone explain how this works?
>> > thanks
>> > Vishnu
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>> > rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>> > http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss