We were discussing the use case of stream storage with message broker. We continue the discussion today.
A message broker can roll over all data eventually to persistence, so the choice of storage does not hamper the core functionality of the message broker.
A stream storage can be hosted on any Tier2 storage whether it is files or blobs. The choice of tier 2 storage does not hamper the functionality of the stream store. In fact, the append only unbounded data nature of messages in the queue is exactly what makes the stream store more appealing to these message brokers
Chained message brokers
This answers the question that if the mb is a separate instance, can message broker be chained across object storage. Along the lines of the previous question, if the current message broker does not resolve the queue for a message located in its queues, is it possible to distribute the query to another message broker. These kinds of questions imply that the resolver merely needs to forward the queries that it cannot answer to a default pre-registered outbound destination. In a chained message broker, the queries can make sense simply out of the naming convention and say if a request belongs to it or not. If it does not, it simply forwards it to another message broker. This is somewhat different from the original notion that the address is something opaque to the user and does not have any interpretable part that can determine the site to which the object belongs. The linked message broker does not even need to take time to local instance is indeed the correct recipient. It can merely translate the address to know if it belongs to it with the help of a registry. This shallow lookup means a request can be forwarded faster to another linked message broker and ultimately to where it may be guaranteed to be found. The Linked message broker has no criteria for the message broker to be similar and as long as the forwarding logic is enabled, any implementation can exist in each of the message broker for translation, lookup and return. This could have been completely mitigated if the opaque addresses were hashes and the destination message broker was determined based on a hash table. Whether we use routing tables or a static hash table, the networking over the chained message brokers can be its own layer facilitating routing of messages to correct message broker.
A message broker can roll over all data eventually to persistence, so the choice of storage does not hamper the core functionality of the message broker.
A stream storage can be hosted on any Tier2 storage whether it is files or blobs. The choice of tier 2 storage does not hamper the functionality of the stream store. In fact, the append only unbounded data nature of messages in the queue is exactly what makes the stream store more appealing to these message brokers
Chained message brokers
This answers the question that if the mb is a separate instance, can message broker be chained across object storage. Along the lines of the previous question, if the current message broker does not resolve the queue for a message located in its queues, is it possible to distribute the query to another message broker. These kinds of questions imply that the resolver merely needs to forward the queries that it cannot answer to a default pre-registered outbound destination. In a chained message broker, the queries can make sense simply out of the naming convention and say if a request belongs to it or not. If it does not, it simply forwards it to another message broker. This is somewhat different from the original notion that the address is something opaque to the user and does not have any interpretable part that can determine the site to which the object belongs. The linked message broker does not even need to take time to local instance is indeed the correct recipient. It can merely translate the address to know if it belongs to it with the help of a registry. This shallow lookup means a request can be forwarded faster to another linked message broker and ultimately to where it may be guaranteed to be found. The Linked message broker has no criteria for the message broker to be similar and as long as the forwarding logic is enabled, any implementation can exist in each of the message broker for translation, lookup and return. This could have been completely mitigated if the opaque addresses were hashes and the destination message broker was determined based on a hash table. Whether we use routing tables or a static hash table, the networking over the chained message brokers can be its own layer facilitating routing of messages to correct message broker.
No comments:
Post a Comment