<p class="MsoNormal">Greetings,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">�</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are investigating using RabbitMQ in a clustered
environment to provide load balancing and some fault tolerance for an
application currently under development.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I'm not a developer, I'm the lead of our Operations team.� Clustering
seems the best approach for my team as it simplifies our application
configuration significantly.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">�</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My question is this.� Our Dev team has told me that
since clustering only provides node fault tolerance, it doesn't add any
additional gain to our design.� Specifically, they mentioned that since a
message queue only resides on one node,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">�</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#555555;background:white">All
data/state required for the operation of a RabbitMQ broker is replicated across
all nodes, for reliability and scaling, with full ACID properties. An exception
to this are message queues, which currently only reside on the node that
created them, though they are visible and reachable from all nodes. Future
releases of RabbitMQ will introduce migration and replication of message
queues."</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#555555;background:white">�</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">clustering doesn't allow us to scale based on the numbers of
messages being sent to one queue.� Is this true, or does the cluster
distribute messages sent to the same message queue throughout off of its member
nodes?� My assumption based on the documentation is that this is the case,
but if a node is lost, messages that were currently residing on that node are
lost as well due to no fault tolerance.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">�</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks much.</p>