[rabbitmq-discuss] Claim on new ocamlmq broker...
mfp at acm.org
Tue Jun 15 00:01:38 BST 2010
Alexis Richardson-5 wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Jason J. W. Williams
> <jasonjwwilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This new OCAML STOMP broker makes this claim about Rabbit on it's page:
>> "RabbitMQ did not guarantee that persistent messages had been saved to
>> disk before sending the message receipt, which could lead to data
>> Anyone else seen this behavior...I surely haven't. Messages disappear
>> in a cluster due to the way queues are handled...but I've never seen
>> this in a single instance.
> Yes, it's bs.
Does that mean that these comments by Matthew Sackman (who AFAIK works for
LShift and is a RabbitMQ developer) no longer apply?
> When you publish a message with delivery mode 2 you are *not* _guaranteed_
> that it hits disk. Publishing is an async operation and you get no
> confirmation that it goes to disk. The new persister does very aggressive
> caching in order to avoid doing lots of tiny and expensive writes. As
> there will frequently be times where if you restart the broker, you will
> several (maybe hundreds) of messages.
Note that I'm referring to what happens in case of a hard RabbitMQ/system
crash. The behavior described by Matthew Sackman is consistent with what I
observed in the tests I did before writing ocamlmq: RabbitMQ accepting
persistent messages at fairly high rates, with quickly growing memory usage
no disk activity.
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Claim-on-new-ocamlmq-broker...-tp28883306p28885584.html
Sent from the RabbitMQ mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss