[rabbitmq-discuss] High Availability and Load Balancers
arunrao.seattle at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 19:52:46 BST 2014
I am using Load Balancer (F5). I am using Producer VIP separately from
Consumer VIP. This gives me a lot of flexibility when doing maintenance.
For Producer VIP, I am using a API health
and looking for "status":"ok" result.
For consumer VIP, I am just using TCP Half-open.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:01 AM, vish.ramachandran <
vish.ramachandran at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello RabbitMq Team,
> We are caught in a decision point on whether to choose a load balancer in
> front of cluster members or to choose a setup where the list of cluster
> members is baked into client configuration.
> Data points:
> 1. We are using clustered rmqs mainly for high availability. Our queues are
> set up for HA in this setup.
> 2. Scalability is not a concern yet. We don't expect to add new members to
> the cluster dynamically. Dynamic DNS is a possibility for recovering any
> failed nodes.
> 3. We are using libraries like Spring AMQP and SStone that provide for
> automatic reconnect/failover. This takes care of consumption. We also plan
> to design clients to retry publishing upon failure.
> 1. We would like to detect failed connections quickly on the client side.
> wonder whether TCP load balancers do a good job of detecting failed
> connections or sit on a bad connection till a real problem is seen.
> 2. If clients deal with the cluster members directly, is it any better? Can
> the RMQ client library (like sstone or spring amqp) do a better job at
> detecting failures quicker than load balancers?
> 3. Can the actual consumers and publishers (clients of the RMQ libraries)
> take any special action to detect and recover from failures quickly?
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the RabbitMQ mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss