I have a cluster of 3 RabbitMQ nodes and I want to keep master queues balanced across all nodes, even after node reboots. Still, master queues don't rebalance when a new node joins the cluster or when one of the nodes disconnects and reconnects.
Example: I create 100 queues on nodes A, B and C.
If node C shutdowns, master queues from C are almost equally rebalanced between node A and B. So at this point, nodes A and B have both approximately 50 master queues.
Now, if I reconnect node C, it'll remain with 0 master queues until new queues are created. This is problematic because I want all my nodes to produce the same amount of work.
My exchanges are durables, my queues are durables and mirrored and my messages are persistent. I want to avoid loosing messages.
I know there is a way to change the master node manually using a policy trick. But this is not satisfying since it breaks HA (by inducing a resynchronisations of all mirrors).
you can use this command:
rabbitmq-queues rebalance type --vhost-pattern pattern --queue-pattern pattern
for example
rabbitmq-queues rebalance "all" --vhost-pattern "a-vhost" --queue-pattern ".*"
One solution is to use Federated Queues.
A federated queue links to other queues (called upstream queues). It will retrieve messages from upstream queues in order to satisfy demand for messages from local consumers.
You can create a completely new cluster which is both upstream and downstream from the original cluster. You also need to ensure that both your publishers and consumers reconnects periodically (to avoid one cluster to monopolize all connections, defeating load-balancing).
As you pointed out, there's also Simon MacMullen's trick from rabbitmq-users group.
# rabbitmqctl set_policy --apply-to queues --priority 100 my-queue '^my-queue$' '{"ha-mode":"nodes", "ha-params":["rabbit#master-node"]}'
# rabbitmqctl clear_policy my-queue
But it has the underdesirable side-effect to make mirrors loose synchronisation for a while. This might be acceptable or not, depending on your requirements, so I think it's worth saying it's possible.
More advanced technique might come up in 4.x, but it is not sure at all.
I would like to create a cluster for high availability and put a load balancer front of this cluster. In our configuration, we would like to create exchanges and queues manually, so one exchanges and queues are created, no client should make a call to redeclare them. I am using direct exchange with a routing key so its possible to route the messages into different queues on different nodes. However, I have some issues with clustering and queues.
As far as I read in the RabbitMQ documentation a queue is specific to the node it was created on. Moreover, we can only one queue with the same name in a cluster which should be alive in the time of publish/consume operations. If the node dies then the queue on that node will be gone and messages may not be recovered (depends on the configuration of course). So, even if I route the same message to different queues in different nodes, still I have to figure out how to use them in order to continue consuming messages.
I wonder if it is possible to handle this failover scenario without using mirrored queues. Say I would like switch to a new node in case of a failure and continue to consume from the same queue. Because publisher is just using routing key and these messages can go into more than one queue, same situation is not possible for the consumers.
In short, what can I to cope with the failures in an environment explained in the first paragraph. Queue mirroring is the best approach with a performance penalty in the cluster or a more practical solution exists?
Data replication (mirrored queues in RabbitMQ) is a standard approach to achieve high availability. I suggest to use those. If you don't replicate your data, you will lose it.
If you are worried about performance - RabbitMQ does not scale well.
The only way I know to improve performance is just to make your nodes bigger or create second cluster. Adding nodes to cluster does not really improve things. Also if you are planning to use TLS it will decrease throughput significantly as well. If you have high throughput requirement +HA I'd consider Apache Kafka.
If your use case allows not to care about HA, then just re-declare queues/exchanges whenever your consumers/publishers connect to the broker, which is absolutely fine. When you declare queue that's already exists nothing wrong will happen, queue won't be purged etc, same with exchange.
Also, check out RabbitMQ sharding plugin, maybe that will do for your usecase.
I want to build a RabbitMQ system which is able to scale out for the sake of performance.
I've gone through the official document of RabbitMQ Clustering. However, its clustering doesn't seem to support scalability. That's because only through master queue we can publish/consume, even though the master queue is reachable from any node of a cluster. Other than the node on which a master queue resides, we can't process any publish/consume.
Why do we cluster then?
Why do we cluster then?
To ensure availability.
To enforce data replication.
To spread the load/data accross queues on different nodes. Master queues can be stored on different node and replicated with a factor < number of cluster nodes.
Other than the node on which a master queue resides, we can't process
any publish/consume.
Client can be connected on any node of the cluster. This node will transfer 'the request' to the master queue node and vice versa. As a downside it will generate extra hop.
Answer to the question in the title Is RabbitMQ Clustering including scalability too? - yes it does, this is achieved by simply adding more nodes/removing some nodes to/from the cluster. Of course you have to consider high availability - that is queue and exchange mirroring etc.
And just to make something clear regarding:
However, its clustering doesn't seem to support scalability. That's
because only through master queue we can publish/consume, even though
the master queue is reachable from any node of a cluster.
Publishing is done to exchange, queues have nothing to with publishing. A publishing client publishes only to an exchange and a routing key. It doesn't need any knowledge about the queue.
I have to say the official website provides very little information to understand RabbitMQ clearly.
The official website suggests using three nodes to build a cluster. What is the reason for that? I suppose it's like ZooKeeper, which needs an odd number of nodes to do a quorum and elect the master.
Also, what is the advantage of using a non-HA cluster? Improve the performance or what? If the node which a queue resides is down, then the queue is not working. So for all situation, is it necessary to set the cluster to be mirror queue and auto-sync?
Three nodes is the minimum to have a reasonable HA.
Suppose you have a queue mirrored in two nodes, if one gets down, another one will be promoted as the new slave or master.
Please read here section Automatically handling partitions and the section More about pause-minority mode
is therefore not a good idea to enable pause-minority mode on a
cluster of two nodes since in the event of any network partition or
node failure, both nodes will pause
RabbitMQ can handle the cluster in different ways, depending on where you deploy it - LAN or WAN or unstable LAN etc. And you can also use federation, shovel
what is the advantage of using a non-HA cluster? Improve the performance or what?
I'd say yes, or simply you have an environment where you don't need to have HA queues since you can have only temporary queues.
is it necessary to set the cluster to be mirror queue and auto-sync?
You can also decide for manual-sync, since when you sync the queue is blocked, and if you have lots of messages to sync, it can be a problem. For example, you can decide to sync the queues when you don't have traffic.
Here (section Unsynchronised Slaves) it is explained clearly.
Your question is a bit general, and it depends on what are you looking for.
I understand redis sentinel is a way of configuring HA (high availability) among multiple redis instances. As I see, there is one redis instance actively serving the client requests at any given time. There are two additional servers are on standby (waiting for a failure to happen, so one of them can be in action again).
Is it waste of resources?
Is there a better way of using full use of the resources available?
Is Redis clustering an alternative to Redis sentinel?
I already looked up redis documentation for sentinel and clustering, can somebody having experience explain please.
UPDATE
OK. In my real deployment scenario I have two servers dedicated for redis. I have another server my Jboss server is running. The application running in Jboss is configured to connect to redis master server(M).
Failover scenario
Ideally, I think when Master cache server fails (either Redis process goes down or machine failure) the application in Jboss needs to connect to Slave cache server. How would I configure the redis servers to achieve this?
+--------+ +--------+
| Master |---------| Slave |
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
Configuration: quorum = 1
First, lets talk sentinel.
Sentinel manages the failover, it doesn't configure Redis for HA. It is an important distinction. Second, the diagram you posted is actually a bad setup - you don't want to run Sentinel on the same node as the Redis nodes it is managing. When you lose that host you lose both.
As to "Is it waste of resources?" it depends on your use case. You don't need three Redis nodes in that setup, you only need two. Three increases your redundancy, but is not required. If you need the added redundancy then it isn't a waste of resources. If you don't need redundancy then you just run a single Redis instance and call it good - as running more would be "wasted".
Another reason for running two slaves would be to split reads. Again, if you need it then it wouldn't be a waste.
As to "Is there a better way of using full use of the resources available?" we can't answer that as it is far too dependent on your specific scenario and code. That said if the amount of data to store is "small" and the command rate is not exceedingly high, then remember you don't need to dedicate a host to Redis.
Now for "Is Redis clustering an alternative to Redis sentinel?".
It really depends entirely on your use case. Redis Cluster is not an HA solution - it is a multiple writer/larger-than-ram solution. If your goal is just HA then it likely won't be suitable for you. Redis Cluster comes with limitations, particularly around multi-key operations, so it isn't necessarily a straightforward "just use cluster" operation.
If you think having three hosts running Redis (and three running sentinel) is wasteful, you'll likely hold Cluster to be even more so as it does require more resources.
The questions you've asked are probably too broad and opinion-based to survive as written. If you have a specific case/problem you are working out please update with that so we can provide specific assistance and information.
Update for specifics:
For proper failover management in your scenario I would go with 3 sentinels, one running on your JBoss server. If you have 3 JBoss nodes then go with one on each. I'd have a Redis pod (master+slave) on separate nodes, and let sentinel manage the failover.
From there it is a matter of wiring up JBoss/Jedis to use Sentinel for it's information and connection management. As I don't use those a quick search turns up that Jedis has the support for it, you just need to configure it correctly. Some examples I found are at Looking for an example of Jedis with Sentinel and https://github.com/xetorthio/jedis/issues/725 which talk about JedisSentinelPool being the route for using a pool.
When Sentinel executes a failover the clients will be disconnected and Jedis will (should?) handle the reconnection by asking the Sentinels who the current master is.
This is not direct answer to your question, but think, it's helpful information for Redis newbies, like me. Also this question appears as the first link in google when searching the "Redis cluster vs sentinel".
Redis Sentinel is the name of the Redis high availability solution...
It has nothing to do with Redis Cluster and is intended to be used by
people that don't need Redis Cluster, but simply a way to perform
automatic fail over when a master instance is not functioning
correctly.
Taken from the Redis Sentinel design draft 1.3
It's not obviuos when you are new to Redis and implementing failover solution. Official documentations about sentinel and clustering doens't compare to each other, so it's hard to choose the right way without reading tons of documentations.
The recommendation, everywhere, is to start with an odd number of instances, not using two or a multiple of two. That was corrected, but lets correct some other points.
First, to say that Sentinel provides failover without HA is false. When you have failover, you have HA with the additional benefit of application state being replicated. The distinction is that you can have HA in a system without replication (it's HA but it's not fault tolerant).
Second, running a sentinel on the same machine as its target redis instance is not a "bad setup": if you lose your sentinel, or your redis instance, or the whole machine, the results are the same. That's probably why every example of such configurations shows both running on the same machine.
Additional info to above answers
Redis Cluster
One main purpose of the Redis cluster is to equally/uniformly distribute
your data load by sharding
Redis Cluster does not use consistent hashing, but a different form of sharding where every key is conceptually part of what is called as hash slot
There are 16384 hash slots in Redis Cluster, Every node in a Redis Cluster is responsible for a subset of the hash slots, so, for example, you may have a cluster with 3 nodes,
where:
Node A contains hash slots from 0 to 5500,
Node B contains hash slots from 5501 to 11000,
Node C contains hash slots from 11001 to 16383
This allows us to add and remove nodes in the cluster easily. For example, if we want to add a new node D, we need to move some hash slot from nodes A, B, C to D
Redis cluster supports the master-slave structure, you can create slaves A1,B1, C2 along with master A, B, C when creating a cluster, so when master B goes down slave B1 gets promoted as master
You don't need additional failover handling when using Redis Cluster and you should definitely not point Sentinel instances at any of the Cluster nodes.
So in practical terms, what do you get with Redis Cluster?
1.The ability to automatically split your dataset among multiple nodes.
2.The ability to continue operations when a subset of the nodes are experiencing failures or are unable to communicate with the rest of the cluster.
Redis Sentinel
Redis supports multiple slaves replicating data from a master node.
This provides a backup for data in master node.
Redis Sentinel is a system designed to manage master and slave. It runs as separate program. The minimum number of sentinels required in an ideal system is 3. They communicate among themselves and make sure that the Master is alive, if not alive they will promote one of the slaves as master, so later when the dead node spins up it will be acting as a slave for the new master
Quorum is configurable. Basically it is the number of sentinels that need to agree as the master is down. N/2 +1 should agree. N is the number of nodes in the Pod (note this setup is called a pod and is not a cluster)
So in practical terms, what do you get with Redis Sentinel?
It will make sure that Master is always available (if master goes down, the slave will be promoted as master)
Reference :
https://fnordig.de/2015/06/01/redis-sentinel-and-redis-cluster/
https://redis.io/topics/cluster-tutorial
This is my understanding after banging my head throughout the documentation.
Sentinel is a kind of hot standby solution where the slaves are kept replicated and ready to be promoted at any time. However, it won't support any multi-node writes. Slaves can be configured for read operations. It's NOT true that Sentinel won't provide HA, it has all the features of a typical active-passive cluster ( though that's not the right term to use here ).
Redis cluster is more or less a distributed solution, working on top of shards. Each chunk of data is being distributed among masters and slaves nodes. A minimum replication factor of 2 ensures that you have two active shards available across master and slaves.
If you know the sharding in Mongo or Elasticsearch, it will be easy to catch up.
Redis can operate in partitioned cluster (with many masters and slaves of those masters) or a single instance mode (single master with replica slaves).
The link here says:
When using Redis in single instance mode, in which a single Redis server manages the entire unpartitioned database, Redis Sentinel is used to manage its availability
It also says:
A Redis cluster, in which data is partitioned among multiple primary instances, manages availability by itself and requires no extra components.
So HA can be ensured in the 2 mentioned scenarios. Hope this clears the doubts. Redis cluster and sentinels are not alternative to each other. They are just used to ensure HA in different cases of partitioned or non-partitioned master.
Redis Sentinel performs the failover promoting replicas when they see a master is down. You typically want an odd number of sentinel nodes. For the example of one master and one replica, 3 sentinels should be used so there can be a consensus on the decision. Ideally the 3rd sentinel is on a 3rd server so the decision is not skewed (depending on failure). Sentinel takes care of changing the master/replica config settings on your nodes so that promotion and syncing occurs in the correct order and you don’t overwrite data by bringing on an old failed master that now contains older data.
Once you have your sentinel nodes set up to perform failovers, you need to ensure you are pointing to the correct instance. See an example of HAProxy configuration for this. HAProxy performs health checks and will point to the new master if a failure occurs.
Clustering will allow you to scale horizontally and can help handle high loads. It does take a bit of work to set up and configure up front.
There is an open source fork of Redis, “KeyDB” that has eliminated the need for sentinel nodes with an active-replica option. This allows the replica node to accept reads and writes. When a failover occurs HAProxy stops reads/writes with the failed node and just uses the remaining active node which is already sync’d. Timestamping enables the failed nodes to rejoin automatically and resync without losing data when they come back online. Setup is simple and for higher traffic you don’t need special upfront setup to direct reads to the replica node and read/writes to the master. See example of active replication here. KeyDB is also multi-threaded which for some applications might be an alternative to clustering, but really depends on what your needs are.
There is also an example of setting up clustering manually and with the create-cluster tool. These are the same steps if you are using Redis (replace 'keydb' with 'redis' in instruction)