That's the answer I need. Thanks,�Francesco.<div><br></div><div><div>-Glade<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Francesco Mazzoli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:francesco@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">francesco@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Glade,<br>
<br>
At Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:01:38 -0700 (PDT),<br>
Glade wrote:<br>
> For a supposedly "just works" kind of service, that is just not good enough. I<br>
> can't have my ops people rolling out of bed to take action every time there's<br>
> a minor network glitch.<br>
<br>
Rabbit clustering is meant to be run on local networks and is not tolerant to<br>
"network glitches". �If you expect those, then don't use it.<br>
<br>
> So, I either need to provide a network that never becomes partitioned (does<br>
> such a network exist? Certainly not at AWS!), or I need to drop clustering and<br>
> have a single RabbitMQ server which won't scale, or I need to cobble together<br>
> some kind of automated supervisor which is certain not to handle all cases, or<br>
> I need to use a different messaging tool.<br>
<br>
Federation or shovel might fit your needs, see<br>
<<a href="http://www.rabbitmq.com/distributed.html" target="_blank">http://www.rabbitmq.com/distributed.html</a>> for an overview.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Francesco * Often in error, never in doubt<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com">rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>