[rabbitmq-discuss] RabbitMQ warrens

[Alexis Richardson]

Joe,

The idea is to send two (or more) copies of the whole data stream to
the brokers, such that each copy shares the fate of a broker.
Therefore the death of a broker does not imply the death of a copy of
the stream.

But hang in there because "active/active" HA is looming and this will
go further than the 'warren' approach..

alexis



On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Manning RabbitMQ In Action book states:
>
> "Now if what we really need is absolute "high availability" with no
> possibilities of message loss we can build a "warren" using two
> standalone RabbitMQ servers with a load balancer making them appear as
> one to our applications."
>
> A "warren" is two unconnected rabbitmq instances with a load balancer
> in front -- one rabbitmq is the master and the other is the standby.
> If the load balancer notices the master is down, it will send the
> traffic to the standby one, using a config like:
>
> listen rabbitmq 0.0.0.0:5680
>  mode tcp
>  balance roundrobin
>  server master :5675 check inter 5000 rise 2 fall 3
>  server standby :5675 backup check inter 5000 rise 2 fall 3
>
>
> I don't get how this prevents message loss.  If there's messages in
> the master's queue and it goes down (hard drive explodes), those
> messages are lost, right?
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>