[rabbitmq-discuss] does rabbitmq server close connections?

[Mark Steele]

You're the expert, should it work? :)

I haven't tested that out, hadn't occurred to me to try.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Alexandru Scvorţov
<alexandru at rabbitmq.com>wrote:

> > We've been bitten by this with firewalls that close connections after
> idle
> > timeouts. Best solution I can come up with is to use TCP keepalives.
>
> Enabling heartbeats (when connecting with a client) didn't help?
> (heartbeats are the AMQP equivalent of TCP keep-alives)
>
> > If you client supports setting TCP options during the connection, that's
> > all you need to do for the client side part. For the server side, I
> > couldn't find any options for this in the rabbit config, so we
> implemented
> > libkeepalive to force the server to use keepalives.
> >
> > Rabbit folks, please add this as an option to the server.
>
> I haven't tried, but I think you can enable keepalives in the
> rabbitmq.config.  Just add a tcp_listen_options entry with {keepalive,
> true}:
>
> [
>        {rabbit, [{tcp_listen_options, [{keepalive, true}]}]}
> ].
>
> http://www.rabbitmq.com/configure.html#config-items
>
> Wouldn't something like that work?
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:47:43AM -0500, Mark Steele wrote:
> > We've been bitten by this with firewalls that close connections after
> idle
> > timeouts. Best solution I can come up with is to use TCP keepalives.
> >
> > If you client supports setting TCP options during the connection, that's
> > all you need to do for the client side part. For the server side, I
> > couldn't find any options for this in the rabbit config, so we
> implemented
> > libkeepalive to force the server to use keepalives.
> >
> > Rabbit folks, please add this as an option to the server.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mark Steele, CISSP, CSM
> > Bering Media Inc.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Alexandru Scvorţov
> > <alexandru at rabbitmq.com>wrote:
> >
> > > > With 100's of computers connected to rabbitmq with persistent
> > > connections,
> > > > would this pose any problems?
> > >
> > > Not unless you run out of free file handles.  On normal installations,
> > > it should handle up to thousands of connections without difficulty.
>  You
> > > could further configure it to support more connections.
> > >
> > > > Does it time-out by default?
> > >
> > > No.  Connections are not timed out.
> > >
> > > > Why use a heartbeat?  Is it to re-establish if the heartbeat fails?
> > >
> > > If the network fails between a client and the broker, and there's no
> > > traffic between them at that point, both will think the connection is
> > > still open, even though it isn't.  Heartbeats ensure that both broker
> > > and client are notified fairly quickly if the connection fails.
> > >
> > > > Would it be better for clients to close connections and only open a
> > > > connection when necessary?
> > >
> > > It depends on your use case.
> > >
> > > > For reading messages we need persistent connections.
> > > > But for writing, and I can see how we could potentially only open a
> > > > connection to write a message when required.
> > >
> > > For consuming messages *efficiently*, you need persistent connections.
> > > If you only get messages very rarely, you could open a connection, poll
> > > the broker with basic.get and then close the connection.  But, if you
> > > need to consume a lot of messages, you probably want persistent
> > > connections anyway.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 05:21:26PM -0500, S Ahmed wrote:
> > > > With 100's of computers connected to rabbitmq with persistent
> > > connections,
> > > > would this pose any problems?
> > > >
> > > > Does it time-out by default?
> > > >
> > > > Why use a heartbeat?  Is it to re-establish if the heartbeat fails?
> > > >
> > > > Would it be better for clients to close connections and only open a
> > > > connection when necessary?
> > > >
> > > > For reading messages we need persistent connections.
> > > >
> > > > But for writing, and I can see how we could potentially only open a
> > > > connection to write a message when required.
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> > > > rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> > > > https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> > > rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> > > https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20120103/90029d6f/attachment.htm>