[rabbitmq-discuss] Queue inspector.
0x6e6562 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 8 06:58:57 GMT 2007
On 8 Nov 2007, at 03:36, Brian Granger wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2007 5:08 PM, Ben Hood <0x6e6562 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Now you may wonder why we would want this. We have two types of
>>> messages: 1) messages that need to be sent to a particular client
>>> 2) messages that can be sent to any one client. In this second
>>> we typically want to send the message to the least loaded client.
>>> messages are packets of work that the clients (they are workers)
>>> perform. We use the shared queue to perform dynamical load
>>> for work that can be performed by any qualified worker. But that
>>> still has to go through the private queues to preserve ordering.
>>> Does this make a bit more sense?
>> Do your clients do anything contextually specific to the producer or
>> is it just that the work needs to get load balanced dynamically
>> according to the resources available to any given consumer?
> I am not quite sure what you mean here. But when clients submit work
> to the shared queue, it really is just for load balancing purposes.
> Can you give me an example of what "contextually specific" would mean
> in this case?
What I am trying to get at is find out whether the load balancing
could just be a concern of the queue infrastructure rather than
implementing it on the application layer. I am unsure why your
producers *need* to know about the existence of any consumers to
achieve your business requirements. Hence I was asking whether it had
to be producer driven rather than consumer driven. The reason that I
was imagining why you might want to make it producer driven is if
there was some kind of conversational state between a producer and a
consumer. Do you have different message types that can only be
consumed by certain consumers?
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss