[rabbitmq-discuss] Question about HA configuration

[Emile Joubert]

Hi Andrea,

On 02/07/12 17:06, Rosa, Andrea (HP Cloud Services) wrote:
> Please consider this scenario: - Active/Passive HA configuration for
> MQ servers (Pacemaker+corosync+DRBD) - NOT using persistent queues:
> so every time there is a failure all messages in the queues are lost
> 
> Does it make sense to have a shared backend storage, for example
> using DRDB? Which is the value of the shared storage if messages are
> not stored on the file system? Maybe it's useful because in the
> shared folder are stored information about queues?!

Shared storage has little value if messages are not durable anyway and
if your application can tolerate queues being emptied when the standby
server takes over from the active one. However the design of the
Active/Passive HA configuration described here:

http://www.rabbitmq.com/pacemaker.html

assumes that the Mnesia database is on shared storage, and that Active
and Passive have a shared identity.

You should consider using the Active/Active HA configuration described here:

http://www.rabbitmq.com/ha.html



-Emile