[rabbitmq-discuss] Broker failover

Niko Felger niko.felger at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 20 11:09:32 BST 2009


Thanks a lot for all this info!

Is there a way to achieve some of this in a clustered setup? I guess our
requirements are not so much HA of the whole messaging subsystem, but rather
that an as-large-as-possible proportion of messages gets processed
_eventually_. The scenario I am mainly worried about is when producers
suddenly cannot publish anymore because the server has gone away and thus
any messages are lost at that point.

We tried using a dumb load balancer (in front of both producers and
consumers) to achieve this, but so far this has caused us more trouble than
it saved, see here:


On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 15:45, Matthew Sackman <matthew at lshift.net> wrote:

> Niko,
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:41:59PM +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> > Therefore, if HA and failover is important to you, we'd recommend the
> > following:
> ...
> One further issue with this is that it means really all the nodes need
> to manually be configured the same, in terms of queues, exchanges and
> bindings. As producers don't know which node they're connected to, this
> really demands that:
> a) Every producer can attempt configuration whenever it connects; or
> b) As consumers may need to be connected to every node, they could do
>   the configuration, as they're not in front of the load balancer; or
> c) You have some other process that does configuration.
> This is definitely one area where the clustered setup saves you effort
> as all nodes implicitly get configured in the same way.
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20090820/a89c647a/attachment.htm 

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list