I have a rabbitmq 3.9.24 instance running in Fargate behind an NLB to terminate TLS. Seems to work okay.
I'd like to add 2 instances to set it up as a cluster. There seem to be ways to do this in the EC2 backed ECS with autoscaling groups, and it seems like there are ways to do it in EKS, but what about Fargate?
We can't change to AmazonMQ's offering of rabbitmq. Our code uses quorum queues, which are explictly not supported by AmazonMQ, and the devs insist this feature is a requirement.
Related
For a large online application, use k8s to run it. The scale maybe daily activity user 500,000.
The application inside k8s need messaging feature - Pub/Sub, there are these options:
Kafka
RabbitMQ
Redis
Kafka
It needs zookeeper and good to run on os depends on disk I/O. So if install it into k8s cluster, how? The performance will be worse?
And, if keep Kafka outside of the k8s cluster, connect Kafka from application inside the k8s cluster, how about that performance? They are in the different layer, won't be slow?
RabbitMQ
It's slow than Kafka, but for a daily activity user 500,000 application, is it good enough? If so, maybe it's a good choice.
Redis
It's another option. Maybe the most simple one. But from the internet I got that it will lose message sometimes. If true, that's terrible.
So, the most important thing is, use Kafka(also with zookeeper) on k8s, good or not in this use case?
Yes, running Kafka on Kubernetes is great. Check out this example: https://github.com/Yolean/kubernetes-kafka. It includes ZooKeeper and Kafka as StatefulSets.
PS. Running any of the services in your question on Kubernetes will be pleasant. You can Google the name of the service and "kubernetes" and find example manifests. Many examples here: https://github.com/kubernetes/charts.
For Kafka, you can find some suggestion here. Kubernetes 1.7+ supports local persistent volume, which may be good for Kafka deployment.
You can also take a look to the following project :
https://github.com/EnMasseProject/barnabas
It's about running Kafka on Kubernetes and OpenShift as well. It provides deploying with StatefulSets with persistent volumes or just in memory (for developing or just testing purpose). It provides deploying for Kafka Connect and Prometheus metrics as well.
Another simple configuration of Kafka/Zookeeper on Kubernetes in DigitalOcean with external access:
https://github.com/StanislavKo/k8s_digitalocean_kafka
You can connect to Kafka from outside of AWS/DO/GCE by regular binary protocol. Connection is PLAINTEXT or SASL_PLAINTEXT (user/password).
Kafka cluster is StatefulSet, so you can scale cluster easily.
When creating a RabbitMQ cluster, non-mirrored queues from other nodes are "remotely accessible" from other nodes.
To a naive developer they will seemingly be able to publish to and consume from any node in an cluster and it will give them a false sense of high-availability.
If the node hosting the queue dies, the consumer will no longer be able to reach the queue from the other node.
Is there a way to disable this behaviour so that it's obvious that one has to either have a mirrored queue or needs to create a distinct queues on each server, consume from both and then handle duplicates.
Thanks
It is not possible disable this behaviour, this is one of the main reasons why you create a cluster.
BTW, you can create a federated cluster by using federation plug-in.
So you can:
have isolated nodes
share only the exchanges or/and queues you prefer.
I am planning on adding Redis to our application as a session and cache store. I have been looking at how to make Redis highly available on an on-premise hosted solution.
The standard approach appears to be to set up Redis as a 3 node replica and use Sentinel for the monitoring and automatic failover.
Redis 2.8 introduces Redis cluster. Does that mean it brings in automatic failover etc and we no longer need to use Sentinel?
No, Cluster and Failover are different scenarios. Also Cluster is in 3.0, not 2.8.
The standard (and minimum) setup for HA is a master and one slave (aka "a pod"), with a separate set of three nodes which run Sentinel and monitor the pod.
This is to ensure failover of the server. However, either your client library has to support using Sentinel to discover master and reconnect on failure, you implement it in your code, or you set up a TCP load balancer and a sentinel monitoring daemon to update your load balancer configuration when a failover occurs at which point the client code doesn't know or care about sentinel.
Cluster isn't there to provide HA, it is there for server-side sharding of data. For Cluster you're looking at 6-7 nodes minimum (3 master, 3 slave, 1 spare) as well as Cluster support in the client and restrictions about commands and Lua script which need to access multiple keys.
The Spring XD documentation (http://docs.spring.io/spring-xd/docs/1.0.0.RC1/reference/html/) recommends Zookeeper to be run in ensemble so that Zookeeper is highly available. There is not lot of details about Redis about high availability.
If I were to run 2 XD admin instances and say 4 Container instances, I see 3 options
should I run a Redis instance in each server that runs container or admin? In that case does the Distributed runtime work properly with different Redis instances handling transport of different modules?
OR
should I run 1 Redis instance in a separate server and configure all XD instances to talk to this instance? In this case 1 instance of Redis is not highly available
OR
should I configure Redis cluster or Redis Sentinel high availability? I am not sure how XD or any other client will connect to a cluster or HA.
Thanks
I would suggest that you run a single Redis instance, there are some settings for persistence that you can change that may meet your requirements.
http://redis.io/topics/persistence
We will be adding support for Redis Sentinal, certainly in the Spring XD 1.1 release, but possibly in a maintenance release depending on what library changes we need to pick up. Spring Data Redis and Spring Boot have recent updates to support Redis Sentinal.
If you are using Redis as a message transport and want higher guarantees, I would switch to using Rabbit HA configuration of the MessageBus.
Cheers,
Mark
I am wanting to setup RabbitMQ as a two (or more) node cluster with HA.
Use case: a client producer app (C#.NET) knows that the cluster has two nodes and publishes to the cluster. Various consumer apps (also C#.NET) connect to the cluster and get all messages generated by the producer. So long as at least one node is up and running the producer and consumers will all continue to work without error. Supposing nodes A and B are running and B dies for a while, then gets restarted, then a while later A dies, the clients all continue to function without receiving an error since at all times at least one node is up.
Can it be made to work like this out of the box?
Are there any other MQs that would be more appropriate (commercial ok) for a Windows/.NET application environment?
RabbitMQ v2.6.0 now supports high-availability queues using active/active clustering. Microsoft and a number of other companies have collaborated on Apache QPid which has C# bindings and which also supports active/active HA clustering.
Can it be made to work like this out of the box?
No. When a node goes down, all of its connections are closed. Since AMQP connections are stateful, there's no way around this. What you could achieve is 1) broker goes down, 2) all clients disconnect, 3) clients connect to other node (masquerading as original) and are none the wiser.
On a side note, rabbit does not support active-active HA clustering at the moment. It does support active-passive clustering and a form of logical clustering (which might be what you're looking for).