Make sense, although we don't care about the order so it doesn't affect us so much.<br><br>Bryan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Matthew Sackman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@lshift.net">matthew@lshift.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:33:19AM -0500, Bryan Murphy wrote:<br>
> Another technique we use:<br>
><br>
> Start one consumer.<br>
><br>
> Start your other consumers.<br>
><br>
> Restart the first consumer.<br>
><br>
> This let's you keep the high prefetch settings while still getting the<br>
> messages to distribute more evenly.<br>
<br>
</div>I would not recommend that at all - you're likely to get messages in<br>
different orders with this scheme. QoS is much better idea, or, use<br>
channel.flow from the client (may only work in newer-than-1.7.2 - can't<br>
remember when it appeared) to prevent any messages being sent out<br>
*before* issuing the basic.consume.<br>
<br>
You could then have either a delay or some signal through some other<br>
exchange and queues (and channel) to get the clients to drop the<br>
channel.flow and start consuming.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Matthew<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>