[rabbitmq-discuss] Persister crashes Rabbit
0x6e6562 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 15 22:30:49 GMT 2008
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:47 PM, rrabarg2 <rrabarg2 at yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
> We have a system which includes a homogeneous set of message producers (we
> call switches) and a backoffice application which consumes these messages.
> We have a guaranteed delivery requirement for the messages, we also require
> that the switches can continue to operate unhindered (assuming infinite disk
> space) during long periods of slow or non-consumption of messages by the
> backoffice. I'm not familiar with rabbitMQ, but the implication I take from
> this thread is that rabbitMQ would not meet our requirements (at least not
> without significant extra bespoke work) - is that a fair statement?
Yes, that's fair.
If you require true store and forward guarantees (assuming - as you
point out - unlimited disk space), and you don't want to do producer
flow control using the channel.flow command, then Rabbit is not the
right thing for you ATM.
This has been a topic of discussion lately (look for posts on the
subject by Edwin and Valentino) and obviously we're looking into this
feature (as indicated in my earlier thread), but there is no ETA.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss