I feel like I am missing something very fundamental here.
I can bring up a RabbitMQ cluster with three nodes (rabbit1, rabbit2 and rabbit3) without an issue. Then when I start writing my microservices it seems like each client connects to only one rabbit instance. So let's say I have all my services connect to rabbit1.
If rabbit1 then goes down will my entire infrastructure blow up? Do the services have a way of switching to another rabbit node? It seems like they cannot, in which case, what is the point of having a cluster?
In case someone else runs into this and has trouble (like myself) finding this in the documentation, RabbitMQ does not manage client connection auto-recovery. From the docs:
Some client libraries provide a mechanism for automatic recovery from
network connection failures... Other clients may consider network
failure recovery to be a responsibility of the application.
So first check if you library offers auto-recovery, if not you'll have to implement it yourself.
Related
There are multiple articles suggesting that load-balancer should be used in front of RabbitMQ cluster.
However, there are also multiple references that Spring AMQP is using some
failover implementation like connection reset when broker comes back to life.
I have several questions regarding this topic (given that those articles are more or less old and it's 2018 today)
When using Spring AMQP, is it load-balancing for still required?
If load-balancing is still suggested, how would I solve affinity of primary queue to its node? There would be much inter-connect between cluster nodes, because round-robin load-balancer would have 1-(1/n) success rate of hitting correct cluster node
Does Spring AMQP support some kind of topology awareness, which would allow it to consume from correct node?
There were some articles suggesting that clients should publish/consume to nodes respecting locality of queues. Does this still apply? How does this all fits together given load-balancing, Spring AMQP failover and CachingConnectionFactory?
Can anybody please provide answers to those topics and also provide relevant references, which would provide additional information for verification?
Thanks a lot
For each of your bullets:
a load balancer makes little sense with default configuration of Spring AMQP since it opens a single, long-lived, connection that is shared across all consumers. In, 2.0, you can configure the RabbitTemplate to use a separate connections; this is because it is a recommended configuration to use a different connection for publishers/consumers; this will be default in 2.1.
It might make sense to use a load balancer if you configure the connection factory to cache connections (instead of just channels) since, then, each component gets its own connection.
See next bullet.
See Queue Affinity and the LocalizedQueueConnectionFactory. It uses the management plugin to determine which node currently hosts the queue and connects to that. It will not work with a load balancer since it needs to connect to the actual node.
It is my understanding from several discussions that queue affinity is only needed in the most extreme environments and that, in most environments, the difference is immeasurable. However, environments/networks differ so much, YMMV so you may want to test. My general rule of thumb is to avoid premature optimization since the added complexity of the configuration may simply not be worth the benefit (and you may not have a problem in the first place).
Amqp brokers have persistence settings that allow guaranteed delivery - but that only works if the message actually reaches the broker. If there is a network failure and a subsequent client crash/reboot messages could be lost. Is there some way in rabbitmq or activemq or some other messaging framework for the client (producer) to persist messages to disk so that in the event the client crashes or is rebooted any unsent messages will not be lost?
I have seen people run a broker locally in order to get around this issue. That seems like an unnecessary amount of work, especially if you don't have much control over the deployment of your client.
In reality you've answered your own question pretty well. Many people looking for client side persistence turn to embedded brokers because it's actually a very good solution. Having a local broker that can store and forward gives you a lot more flexibility than just an built in persistence layer in each client, all local clients can share one broker instance which can allow you to move storage as needed in cases where you find that your stored local messages are building up due to unforeseen remote downtime.
There are of course some client implementations that do offer storage but finding one depends on your chosen broker / protocol and of course your willingness to shell out the money to buy support or licensing if that client happens to not be from say an open source implementation. The MQTT Paho client does I think have a local storage option as do some others.
I am new to RabbitMq. I am not able to understand the concept here. Please find the scenario.
I have two machines (RMQ1, RMQ2) where I have installed rabbitmq in both the machines which are running. Again I clustered RMQ2 to join RMQ1
cmd:/> rabbitmqctl join_cluster rabbit#RMQ1
If you see the status of the machines here it is as below
In RMQ1
c:/> rabbitmqctl cluster_status
Cluster status of node rabbit#RMQ1...
[{nodes,[{disc,[rabbit#RMQ1,rabbit#RMQ2]}]},
{running_nodes,[rabbit#RMQ1,rabbit#RMQ2]}]
In RMQ2
c:\> rabbitmqctl cluster_status
Cluster status of node rabbit#RMQ2 ...
[{nodes,[{disc,[rabbit#RMQ1,rabbit#RMQ2]}]},
{running_nodes,[rabbit#RMQ1,rabbit#RMQ2]}]
The in order to publish and subscribe message I am connecting to RMQ1. Now I see the whenever I sent or message to RMQ1, I see message mirrored in both RMQ1 and RMQ2. This I understand clearly that as both the nodes are in same cluster they are getting mirrored across nodes.
Let say I bring down the RMQ2, I still see message getting published to RMQ1.
But when I bring down the RMQ1, I cannot publish the message anymore. From this I understand that RMQ1 is master and RMQ2 is slave.
Now I have below questions, without changing the code :
How do I make the RMQ2 take up the job of accepting the message.
What is the meaning of Highly Available Queues.
How should be the strategy for implementing this kind scenario.
Please help
Question #2 is best answered first, since it will clear up a lot of things for you.
What is the meaning of highly available queues?
A good source of information for this is the Rabbit doc on high availability. It's very important to understand that mirroring (which is how you achieve high availability in Rabbit) and clustering are not the same thing. You need to create a cluster in order to mirror, but mirroring doesn't happen automatically just because you create a cluster.
When you cluster Rabbit, the nodes in the cluster share exchanges, bindings, permissions, and other resources. This allows you to manage the cluster as a single logical broker and utilize it for scenarios such as load-balancing. However, even though queues in a cluster are accessible from any machine in the cluster, each queue and its messages are still actually located only on the single node where the queue was declared.
This is why, in your case, bringing down RMQ1 will make the queues and messages unavailable. If that's the node you always connect to, then that's where those queues reside. They simply do not exist on RMQ2.
In addition, even if there are queues and messages on RMQ2, you will not be able to access them unless you specifically connect to RMQ2 after you detect that your connection to RMQ1 has been lost. Rabbit will not automatically connect you to some surviving node in a cluster.
By the way, if you look at a cluster in the RabbitMQ management console, what you see might make you think that the messages and queues are replicated. They are not. You are looking at the cluster in the management console. So regardless of which node you connect to in the console, you will see a cluster-wide view.
So with this background now you know the answer to your other two questions:
What should be the strategy for implementing high availability? / how to make RMQ2 accept messages?
From your description, you are looking for the failover that high availability is intended to provide. You need to enable this on your cluster. This is done through a policy, and there are various ways to do it, but the easiest way is in the management console on the Admin tab in the Policies section:
The previously cited doc has more detail on what it means to configure high availability in Rabbit.
What this will give you is mirroring of queues and messages across your cluster. That way, if RMQ1 fails then RMQ2 will still have your queues and messages since they are mirrored across both nodes.
An important note is that Rabbit will not automatically detect a loss of connection to RMQ1 and connect you to RMQ2. Your client needs to do this. I see you tagged your question with EasyNetQ. EasyNetQ provides this "failover connect" type of feature for you. You just need to supply both node hosts in the connection string. The EasyNetQ doc on clustering has details. Note that EasyNetQ even lets you inject a simple load balancing strategy in this case as well.
Are Activemq, Redis and Apache camel a right combination?
Am planning for a high performant enterprise level integration solution accross multiple applications
My objective is to make the solution
a. independent of the consumers performance
b. able to trouble shoot in case of any issue
c. highly available with failover support
d. Hanlde 10k msgs per second
Here I'm planning to have
a. network of activemq brokers running in all app servers and storing the consumed messages in redis data store
b. from redis data store, application can retrieve the messages through camel end points
(camel end point is chosen to process the messages before reaching the app).
Also can ActiveMQ be removed with only Redis + Apache camel, as I see from the discussions forms that Redis does most of the ActiveMQ stuff
Could any one advise on this technology stack.
ActiveMQ and Camel works great together and scales very well - should be no problem to handle the load given proper hardware.
Are you thinking about something like this?
Message producer App -> ActiveMQ -> Camel -> Redis
Message Consumer App <- Camel [some endpoint] <- Redis
Puting ActiveMQ in between is usually a very good way to achieve HA, load balancing and making the solution elastic. Depending on your specific setup with machines etc. ActiveMQ can help in many ways to solve HA issues.
Removing ActiveMQ can a good option if your apps use some other protocol than JMS/ActiveMQ messaging, i.e. HTTP, raw tcp or similar. Can you elaborate on how the apps will communicate with Camel? ActiveMQ, by default, supports transactions, guaranteed delivery and you can live with a limited number of threads on the server, even for your heavy traffic. For other protocols, this might be a bit trickier to achieve. Without a HA layer (cluster) in ActiveMQ you need to setup Redis to handle HA in all aspects, which might be just as easy, but Redis is a bit memory hungry, so be aware of that.
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).