[rabbitmq-discuss] Cluster, shovel, how to accomplish this scenario?

Simone Busoli simone.busoli at gmail.com
Sat May 14 01:19:28 BST 2011

Thanks Matthew, that's something I have figured out in the meanwhile, and
it's unfortunate that there is not built-in support for something like this.

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 13:30, Matthew Sackman <matthew at rabbitmq.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:19:26AM -0700, Simone wrote:
> > I need to have two instances of the server located in two different and
> > distant places connected by a network link with limited bandwidth.
> Clients
> > need to be able to connect to their nearest instance only and to
> communicate
> > with clients connected to the other server instance using the least
> > bandwidth possible. Is this accomplished using clustering, shovel or do
> they
> > have a different purpose? In any case, how would I set-up the
> infrastructure
> > described above?
> Clustering is unlikely to work well over a WAN because Erlang's
> clustering (specifically mnesia) doesn't cope well with recovery from
> partitions.
> Shovel is an alternative but can only do static configuration. If you
> have, or can arrange at the boundaries between your two systems, a fixed
> number of queues then the shovel can work well. However, note that with
> clustering, you have one logical broker. With shovel, you do not: you
> have two distinct brokers.
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20110514/82ac3dc5/attachment.htm>

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list