[rabbitmq-discuss] Shovel configuration for a clustered broker with mirrored high-availability queues

[Simon MacMullen]

On 29/06/12 23:42, Eric wrote:
> I thought I sent along another message, but apparently it didn't go
> through.  Viewing this group through the new Google Groups UI is
> confusing.

As previously mentioned, we prefer people not use the Google group - 
it's an unofficial mirror that we sadly have no control over.

> I misunderstood the federation configuration; I see now that you
> declare a backing type when you declare the federated exchange, which
> makes sense.  I thought the backing type was based on the upstream
> exchange.

Yes. The two should really match though, or you will get weird behaviour.

> Going back to shovel for a second... if I have two shovels running in
> a cluster, one on each broker, and they connect to their host broker
> and consume from the same mirrored queue (the queue is 'shared' across
> the cluster) will they simply behave like two consumers on the same
> queue, and basically receive messages round-robin?  Because that would
> work fine for my scenario.  They'll share the workload unless one of
> the brokers in the cluster dies, after which one shovel would be doing
> all the work.

Yes, the shovel is a normal AMQP client in that respect (and every other).

Cheers, Simon

-- 
Simon MacMullen
RabbitMQ, VMware