[rabbitmq-discuss] High Availability and Load Balancers

vish.ramachandran vish.ramachandran at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 18:01:55 BST 2014

Hello RabbitMq Team,

We are caught in a decision point on whether to choose a load balancer in
front of cluster members or to choose a setup where the list of cluster
members is baked into client configuration. 

Data points:

1. We are using clustered rmqs mainly for high availability. Our queues are
set up for HA in this setup. 

2. Scalability is not a concern yet. We don't expect to add new members to
the cluster dynamically. Dynamic DNS is a possibility for recovering any
failed nodes. 

3. We are using libraries like Spring AMQP and SStone that provide for
automatic reconnect/failover. This takes care of consumption. We also plan
to design clients to retry publishing upon failure. 


1. We would like to detect failed connections quickly on the client side. We
wonder whether TCP load balancers do a good job of detecting failed
connections or sit on a bad connection till a real problem is seen. 

2. If clients deal with the cluster members directly, is it any better? Can
the RMQ client library (like sstone or spring amqp) do a better job at
detecting failures quicker than load balancers?

3. Can the actual consumers and publishers (clients of the RMQ libraries)
take any special action to detect and recover from failures quickly?



View this message in context: http://rabbitmq.1065348.n5.nabble.com/High-Availability-and-Load-Balancers-tp35058.html
Sent from the RabbitMQ mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list