[rabbitmq-discuss] Shovels not reconnecting with RabbitMQ 3.1.0

Jon Bergli Heier jon.bergli.heier at zisson.no
Thu May 2 16:24:04 BST 2013


Yes, that seems to be the case. When leaving it unset it seems to behave as if it was set to 0.
Manually setting it to 5 is a quick workaround I guess.

Jon

________________________________________
From: rabbitmq-discuss-bounces at lists.rabbitmq.com [rabbitmq-discuss-bounces at lists.rabbitmq.com] on behalf of Tim Watson [tim at rabbitmq.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 17:07
To: Discussions about RabbitMQ
Subject: Re: [rabbitmq-discuss] Shovels not reconnecting with RabbitMQ 3.1.0

Hi Jon,

Just to clarify. When I explicitly set the shovel to {reconnect_delay, N}, it restarts with the correct frequency.

Cheers,
Tim

On 2 May 2013, at 15:43, Jon Bergli Heier wrote:

> Hi, just did some testing here. If I leave reconnect_delay unset, the shovel does not reconnect. Setting reconnect_delay to 0 seems to have the same effect (as expected). Setting reconnect_delay to a nonzero value makes the shovel reconnect immediately (tested with 10 and 1000). I tested this by closing the shovel's connection from the management interface on the cluster.
>
> Jon
>
> ________________________________________
> From: rabbitmq-discuss-bounces at lists.rabbitmq.com [rabbitmq-discuss-bounces at lists.rabbitmq.com] on behalf of Tim Watson [tim at rabbitmq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 15:56
> To: Discussions about RabbitMQ
> Subject: Re: [rabbitmq-discuss] Shovels not reconnecting with RabbitMQ 3.1.0
>
> On 2 May 2013, at 11:29, Jon Bergli Heier wrote:
>
>> Hello, after upgrading to RabbitMQ 3.1.0 my shovels doesn't seem to reconnect automatically. I don't have reconnect_delay set, so I'm assuming they should use the default, which is 5 seconds according to the shovel docs (http://www.rabbitmq.com/shovel.html).
>
> I've just checked and the default reconnect delay is still set to 5 seconds.
>
>> The shovels are on non-clustered brokers, connecting to a two-node cluster.
>
>
> Hmn. If the shovels were clustered then it's possible a named shovel's configuration from one node could override the other (due to the way in which individual shovel workers fail-over in 3.1), but you say they're not clustered. Hmn. I'll have a quick go at reproducing this, but AFAICT there's no reason they shouldn't be attempting to reconnect. Unless the reconnect_delay is being overridden somewhere?
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss

_______________________________________________
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss


More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list