[rabbitmq-discuss] Exchange and queue naming conventions

Jeff Hinrichs jeffh at delasco.com
Tue Jan 25 15:55:05 GMT 2011

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Michael Klishin <
michael.s.klishin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/1/25 Bill Moseley <moseley at hank.org>
>> I do think it makes sense to use the dotted notation, and then use topic
>> queues as that makes for very flexible routing options.  I was wondering if
>> anyone had worked out some "best practices" over time that would be useful
>> as we start to add more tasks.
> 1+ year and several apps later I see the following pattern developing on my
> team:
> 1. Exchanges are declared by producers.
> 2. Queues are declared and bound by consumers.
> 3. In vast majority of cases, consumers are "smart" and producers are very
> dumb: they just put messages in well-known places. Consumers
>     are "smart" in a sense that they almost always keep some persistent
> state (in Redis, for example), while producers are just monitored in case
> they crash.
> 4. Exchanges are named using the following pattern
> $prefix.$applications_group.$app.$environment. For example,
> megacorp.mail_delivery.shaper.qa or
> megacorp.search.online_indexer.production. It works well with multiple
> installations and if you want to route some data to your
> customers/partners/archive.
> Also, it becomes increasingly obvious that many exchanges and bindings
> would be unnecessary if we begin to use default exchange more.
>> BTW -- in that case can I configure binding for three queues:
>>  *.qa.rotate_image. *.production.rotate_image, and then a third for all
>> except "qa" a and "production"?
> "Except" case is not handled by AMQP very well (not in 0.9.1 I am most
> familiar with, anyway). Maybe *.other.rotate_image would be good enough?
> Finally, I'm still a bit confused when to create new exchanges (assuming
>> all the same type).  Just trying to get some basic guidelines.  Is there any
>> overhead with using more exchanges vs. just more bindings on the same
>> exchange?  Is is common to use separate exchanges for grouping consumers
>> (i.e. an exchange for report queues and another exchange for image
>> manipulation queues)?
> Unless you have thousands of them on a small box, it probably does not make
> much difference. For support cases, dealing with apps that use 150 exchanges
> may be significantly more difficult than if they were using just 3, though.
> Hope this helps.
> --
> MK
That was very helpful, thank you.  I am very interested if others concur or
have differing wisdom?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20110125/3e1ac7cc/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list