[rabbitmq-discuss] Unexaplainable behaviour with shovel plugin.
0x6e6562 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 06:32:57 GMT 2014
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Laing, Michael
<michael.laing at nytimes.com> wrote:
> Persistence might increase reliability when you plan to restart nodes and
> need to regain state. We don't do that.
Are you referring to Rabbit nodes heres? Reading further into your
description, it looks like the application state is maintained by
> We target queue lengths of zero and are close most of the time. Anything
> else stands out like a black spot on a white sheet.
How do you achieve this steady state? Have you calibrated your app in
some fashion? Or do you apply flow control?
> So we never restart nodes that die. Just sync in new ones. Actually we have
> not yet had any core nodes die in production.
Again - you're talking about Rabbit nodes right?
> Our instances are ridiculously small and inexpensive to run. We rely on this
> global, headless, mutually supporting rabbit army for our reliability,
> paired with a small Cassandra horde.
Seems like a simple yet effective approach given the scale you're targeting.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss