[rabbitmq-discuss] Disk node vs ram node

[Dave Greggory]

I understand, look forward to hearing about your plans for HA. 

On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis at rabbitmq.com> wrote:

> Dave
> 
> One of the things on our todo list, as you can imagine, is to
> understand how to best provide HA in a VM based setting.  Some VM
> technologies provide useful failover / snapshot capability...
> 
> alexis
> 
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Dave Greggory <davegreggory at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Ouch... so no way to ensure that there's something to catch messages when the
>> node with the original durable queue goes down?
>> 
>> There are several mentions throughout the site about out-of-the-box live
>> failover in future release, how far out is that? 6 months? 1 year?
>> 
>> Not a big fan of the pacemaker approach due to the number of moving parts and
>> different packages (pacemaker/corosync/heartbeat/erbd) to maintain and manage.
>> And also haven't seen any indication of people actually using that setup in a
>> complex VM environment in production.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Alexandru Scvorţov <alexandru at rabbitmq.com>
>> To: Dave Greggory <davegreggory at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com" <rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com>
>> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 9:33:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: [rabbitmq-discuss] Disk node vs ram node
>> 
>> Hi Dave,
>> 
>>> When a node with a queue goes down, can I write something using the java client
>>> 
>>> that re-declares all known queues on the other node. May be have all the queue
>>> names(and params) registered somewhere in the app and upon reconnect, passively
>> 
>>> re-declare them. If passive declaration throws an exception, catch that and do
>>> an actual declaration. Would that work?
>> 
>> If you:
>>  1) declare a durable queue on one of the clustered nodes,
>>  2) take down that node,
>>  3) declare the same queue on another node
>> you get a "404: Not Found".
>> 
>> If it's not durable, sure.
>> 
>> As an aside, if you passive declare something, then immediately declare
>> it, the first step is redundant.  There's no problem with declaring
>> the same thing repeatedly. (assuming it's declared in exactly the
>> same way and it's not unreachable)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>>