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.
Related
Overview
A RabbitMQ broker is a logical grouping of one or several Erlang
nodes, each running the RabbitMQ application and sharing users,
virtual hosts, queues, exchanges, bindings, and runtime parameters.
Sometimes we refer to the collection of nodes as a cluster.
Why would you do this? I understand to increase durability of messages (if a node goes down, other queues still get the messages). But what about performance? How does cluster improve performance. Won't all consumers/producers connect to the master node's queue anyway? If so, aren't we still getting traffic on a single node regardless? Do we put a load balancer so traffic is directed at different nodes each time?
How does RabbitMQ cluster increase performance?
Well, right after that paragraph, the documentation states the following:
What is Replicated?
All data/state required for the operation of a RabbitMQ broker is
replicated across all nodes. An exception to this are message queues,
which by default reside on one node, though they are visible and
reachable from all nodes. To replicate queues across nodes in a
cluster, see the documentation on high availability (note that you
will need a working cluster first).
So, you would cluster to provide higher capacity in your RabbitMQ broker than a single node can provide alone. Note that clustering by itself is not a high-availability strategy.
Your assertion that message durability is increased is false, as message queues continue to reside on one broker (unless mirroring is used).
By default, contents of a queue within a RabbitMQ cluster are located on a single node (the node on which the queue was declared) [1]
Without mirroring, when that node goes down, messages on it will be lost. The cluster will put the queue onto a different node. RabbitMQ does not handle network partitions well, so this can be a bit of a problem.
"Aren't we still getting traffic on a single node regardless?" - if you only have one queue, then yes. However, a bigger question is "why would you run a message broker with only one queue?" Similarly, if you only create queues on one node, then you will still have one point of failure in the system.
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.
I would like to run RabbitMQ Highly Available Queues in a cluster of two RabbitMQ instances on two separate servers. It's not clear to me from the documentation how can I detect which node is considered as master by RabbitMQ in order to determine which node should I publish messages to and consume from.
Is that something that RabbitMQ resolves internally (and so I can publish and consume from master even when connected to a slave node) or should the application know about master node for each queue and connect only to it?
RabbitMQ will take care of that. The idea of HA queues is that you publish and consume from either node, and RabbitMQ will try to keep a consistent state.
I am trying to set up cluster of brokers, which should have same feature like rabbitMQ cluster, but over WAN (my machines are in different locations), so rabbitMQ cluster does not work.
I am looking to alternatives, rabbitMQ federation is just backup the messages in the downstream, can not make sure they have exactly the same messages available at any time (downstream still keeps the old messages already consumed in the upstream)
how about ActiveMQ Master/Slave, I have found :
http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-distributed-queues-work.html
"queues and topics are all replicated between each broker in the cluster (so often to a master and maybe a single slave). So each broker in the cluster has exactly the same messages available at any time so if a master fails, clients failover to a slave and you don't loose a message."
My concern is that if it can automatically update to make sure Master/Slave always have the same messages, which means the consumed messages in Master will also disappear in Slaves.
Thanks :)
ActiveMQ has various clustering features.
First there is High Availability - "Master/Slave". The idea is that several physical servers act as a single logical ActiveMQ broker. If one goes down, another takes it place without losing data. You can do that by sharing the message store (shared file system or shared JDBC), or you could setup a replicated cluster, which replicates read/writes to the master down to all slaves (you need three+ servers). ActiveMQ is using LevelDB and Apache Zookeeper to achieve this.
The other format of cluster available in ActiveMQ is to be able to distribute load and separate security over several logical brokers. Brokers are then connected in a network of brokers. Messages are by default passed around to the broker with available consumers for that message. However, there is a rich toolbox of features in ActiveMQ to tweak a network of brokers to do things as always send a copy of a message to specific broker etc. It takes some messing with the more advanced features though (static network connectors and queue mirroring, maybe more).
Maybe there is a better way to solve your requirements, which is not really specified in the question?
For the company I work for we would like to use RabbitMQ as our main message bus. The idea we have is that every single application uses their own vhost for internal communication and that via the shovel or federation plugin we would make it possible to share certain type of the events across multiple vhosts (maybe even multiple machines (non-clustered)).
We chose for application per vhost to separate internal communication from public events and to keep the security adjustable per application.
Based on the information published on the RabbitMQ website I don't get it when I have to choose for shovels or when I have to choose for the federation plugin.
RabbitMQ has the following explanation when to use what:
Typically you would use the shovel to link brokers across the internet when you need more control than federation provides.
What is the fine grain control in shovels which I am missing when I choose for federation?
At this moment I think I would prefer the federation plugin because I could automate the inter-vhost-communication via the REST API provided by the federation plugin.
In case of shovels I would need to change the shovel configuration and reboot the RabbitMQ instance every time we would like to share an event between vhosts. Are my thoughts correct about this?
We are currently running RMQ on Windows with clients connecting from .NET. In the near future Java/Perl/PHP clients will join.
To summarize my questions:
What is the fine grain control in shovels which I am missing when I
choose for federation?
Is it correct that the only way to change the
inter-vhost-communication when I use shovels is by changing theconfig file and rebooting the instance?
Does the setup (vhost per application) make sense or am I missing the point completely?
Shovels and queue provide different means to be forward messages from one RabbitMQ node to another.
Federated Exchange
With a federated exchange, queues can be connected to the queue on the upstream(source) node. In addition, an exchange on the downstream(destination) node will receive a copy of messages that are published to the upstream node.
Federated exchanges are a similar to exchange-to-exchange bindings, in that, they can (optionally) subscribe to a limited set of messages from an upstream exchange.
Federated Queue
(NOTE: These are new in RabbitMQ 3.2.x)
With a federated queue, consumers can be connected to the queue on both the upstream(source) and downstream(destination) nodes.
In essence the downstream queue is a consumer on the upstream queue, with the expectation that there will be additional downstream consumers that process the messages in the same manner as a consumer attached to the upstream queue.
Any messages consumed by the downstream (federated) queue will not be available for consumers on the upstream queue.
Use Case:
If consumers are being migrated from one node to another, a federated queue will allow this to happen without messages being missed, or processed twice.
Use Case: from the RabbitMQ docs
The typical use would be to have the same "logical" queue distributed
over many brokers. Each broker would declare a federated queue with
all the other federated queues upstream. (The links would form a
complete bi-directional graph on n queues.)
Shovel
Shovels on the other hand, attach an "upstream" queue to a "downstream" exchange. (I place the terms in quotes because the shovel documentation does not describe the nodes with the same semantics as the federation documentation.)
The shovel consumes the messages from the queue and sends them to the exchange on the destination node. (NOTE: While not normally discussed as part of this the pattern, there is nothing stopping a consumer from connecting to the queue on the origin node.)
To answer the specific questions:
What is the fine grain control in shovels which I am missing when I
choose for federation?
A shovel does not have to reside on an "upstream" or "downstream" node. It can be configured and operate from an independent node.
A shovel can create all of the elements of the linkage by itself: the source queue, the bindings of the queue, and the destination exchange. Thus, it is non-invasive to either the source or destination node.
Is it correct that the only way to change the
inter-vhost-communication when I use shovels is by changing theconfig
file and rebooting the instance?
This has generally been the accepted downside of the shovel.
With the following command (caveat: only tested on RabbitMQ 3.1.x, and with a very specific rabbitmq.config file that only contain ) you can reload a shovel configuration from the specified file. (in this case /etc/rabbitmq/rabbitmq.config)
rabbitmqctl eval 'application:stop(rabbitmq_shovel), {ok, [[{rabbit, _}|[{rabbitmq_shovel, [{shovels, Shovels}] }]]]} = file:consult("/etc/rabbitmq/rabbitmq.config"), application:set_env(rabbitmq_shovel, shovels, Shovels), application:start(rabbitmq_shovel).'
.
Does the setup (vhost per application) make sense or am I missing the
point completely?
This decision is going to depend on your use case. vhosts primarily provide logical (and access) separation between queues/exchanges and authorized users.
Shovel acts like a well-designed built-in consumer. It can consume messages from a source broker and queue, and publish them into a destination broker and exchange. You could write an application to do that, but shovel already got it right - if all you need is to move messages from a queue to an exchange in the same or another broker, shovel can do it for you. Just as a well-behaving app, it can declare exchanges/queues/bindings, reconnect, change the routing key etc. You can set it up on the source or on the destination broker, or even use a third broker. It's basically an AMQP client.
Federation, on the other hand is used to connect your broker to one or multiple upstream brokers, or you can even create chains of brokers, bending the topology any way you like. You can federate exchanges or queues, and e.g. distribute messages to multiple brokers without the need to bind additional queues to a topic exchange or using a fanout exchange, and shoveling messages from each queue to a downstream broker.
To recap, federation operates at a higher level, while shovel is mostly "just" a well-written client.
To reconfigure shovel, you have to restart the broker, unfortunately.
I don't think you really need a per app vhost. You can add a per-app user to the broker without separate vhosts. Not sure what you mean on "share an event between vhosts", though.