[rabbitmq-discuss] Doubt regarding rabbit servers in clustered environment
stephanion2002 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 14:18:54 GMT 2010
We will do our homework on these lines and will post our doubts again.
Thanks & Regards,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Marek Majkowski <majek04 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 05:01, Kshitiz Garg <stephanion2002 at gmail.com>
> > Since our 8 queues are going to handle lot of data, we can cluster 8
> > RabbitMQ nodes, each to serve a single queue and its contents. But there
> > two concerns:
> Remember that any modification of shared database must be agreed between
> all the nodes in the cluster. 8 nodes is a lot and might result in a
> latency for commands like exchange.declare or queue.bind. We rarely
> see a cluster of more than a few nodes.
> > 1. In the case a node (say, containing queue a) is down, how will the
> > a's consumers will get their messages?
> They won't.
> > 2. A load balancer like HA Proxy in front of these nodes will not be of
> > use since nodes are not similar.
> It would help to spread the connections equally between nodes.
> That is pretty useful if you have a lot of connections.
> > I am afraid that since we are neither getting "Load balancing" nor "High
> > availability", we will have to consider another broker.
> For HA we're usually suggesting Active-Passive failover:
> We're currently working on Active-Active HA, but it will take us some time.
> Clustering does help in "Load balancing" but only in some situations.
> For example it may be pretty useful for the 'fanout' cases, when you
> have many queues.
> But if you have a single queue, clustering won't help you.
> It's a bit like with database sharding, if you have one monolitic table -
> sharding won't help.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss