[rabbitmq-discuss] Examining Queue Failover Behavior
Jason J. W. Williams
jasonjwwilliams at gmail.com
Wed Feb 11 16:43:29 GMT 2009
Everyone seems to think I expected the content to migrate. :-) I only
expected the queue to migrate (sans content). :-) Otherwise, messages
published to the exchange get blackholed and persistence doesn't mean
a whole lot.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Ben Hood <0x6e6562 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Jason,
> Don't worry, your post did not disappear down a black hole, we are
> just extremely busy doing client related work ATM.
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jason J. W. Williams
> <jasonjwwilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>> No problem. I appreciate the response. They are durable:
> One thing that I overlooked in your original post was that you
> expected a queue process and it's content to be automagically migrated
> on the event of a node failure. This does not happen currently. In
> general, the process of neatly recovering such that a node failure is
> completely transparent to a client is not addressed. The modus
> operandi is to a) not lose messages and then b) give somebody the
> tools to recover a node. The reason why transparent failover has not
> been addressed is because it is quite difficult to do - for example,
> how do you when a node has died or that the network has just been
> partitioned? Doable, but difficult.
> (To Valentino and Co ) as I said before, I'll try to address all of
> the related posts today.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss