TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

An OSS scalable distributed message queue with automatic failover. It kicks ass

13 点作者 dhruvbird大约 15 年前

3 条评论

plq大约 15 年前
this recent mq hype is really about the unification of a directory server, a wire protocol and a reliable (or not) message transfer scheme just like the good old smtp. once one sets up a proper directory solution (ldap) and uses thrift for serialization, the need for a messaging daemon goes away -- every publisher can keep an (optionally) persistent queue however they want.. so the mq becomes just a library.<p>it seems to me that imatix guys have been there, done that and saw that mq-as-library was the way to go for a more efficient and reliable distributed transaction processing system. <a href="http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:brokerless" rel="nofollow">http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:brokerless</a> is an interesting read in this regard.
评论 #1325740 未加载
评论 #1326718 未加载
hawthornenigel大约 15 年前
From the clustering page of the Wiki:<p>"The pymq cluster is not designed to survive a master crash. If the master is to crash, all bets are off. However, clients that are already connected to the individual nodes can continue to operate normally. It's just that automatic failover and queue discovery won't work (which is basically what the master does)."<p>This is not fail-safe, unlike most enterprise messaging systems. Though you could stick the master on a VMware cluster with FT enabled and survive hardware failures, there is nothing preventing data loss from software or networking failures.
评论 #1326713 未加载
sandGorgon大约 15 年前
how does this compare with Beanstalk ?
评论 #1330052 未加载