[rabbitmq-discuss] Unexaplainable behaviour with shovel plugin.

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
Cassandra replication.

> 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.