Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | juliensab's commentslogin

Why?


One less service to manage, plus RabbitMQ's options for dealing with network partitions are all terrible. If you want to run a RabbitMQ cluster, you don't have any option that avoids data loss.


Can you even avoid data loss with partitions in a AP system like RabbitMQ?


RabbitMQ is not strictly an AP system. Its clustering functionality supports several different modes for handling partitions (all of which allow for data loss) and is CP. Federation, which you should use if your network between nodes isn't super reliable, is AP.[0]

What I'd like to see is clustering with support for merging data between nodes. You'd probably end up with duplicates, which I'm OK with, but you'd avoid the data loss that happens with other modes like Pause Minority, where messages get dropped on rejoining a cluster.

[0]: https://www.rabbitmq.com/distributed.html


one less dependency to take care of, I presume


No comment? Maybe a better title for hacker news could be: How human failed to scale?


Do not assume if you don't have sufficient information

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14751153


Indeed missed this one! I prefer this :)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: