Hrmm!�<div><br></div><div>Not entirely ideal .. I'd had visions of hacking this wee beastie to be overridable/configurable:</div><div><a href="https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-federation/blob/master/src/rabbit_federation_link.erl#L520">https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-federation/blob/master/src/rabbit_federation_link.erl#L520</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Going the route of changing exchange types and other upstream finger pokery is not an option, unfortunately.</div><div><br></div><div>I'll stick to using an�insentient�shovel config, to ensure sharing upstream queues in the meantime.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Brendan</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Simon MacMullen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">simon@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 21/09/12 09:01, Brendan Hay wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Say I have two downstream brokers connected to a single upstream,<br>
upon which lives a single exchange.<br>
<br>
Can I configure the plugin, to create the upstream federation queues,<br>
with the same name so that they round-robin over messages coming<br>
off the upstream exchange, to ensure messages are delivered to<br>
_either_ of the downstream pair (rather than both)?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
Sort of.<br>
<br>
You could set the 'local_nodename' for each broker to the same value. They will both identify themselves the same way to the upstream, and thus share queues.<br>
<br>
But they won't be aware of each other, and they will thus stomp on each other's bindings upstream. So that's not good.<br>
<br>
Maybe we need to separate the federation from the round-robinning? You could use the consistent hash exchange upstream as a source, and then bind two exchanges as local destinations to that, and then federate with those two exchanges. You won't share the upstream queues but you'll get a similar round-robinning effect (the difference being that if one link goes down messages will back up for it, rather than the other link taking the strain).<br>
<br>
Cheers, Simon<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Simon MacMullen<br>
RabbitMQ, VMware<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">rabbitmq-discuss@lists.<u></u>rabbitmq.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.rabbitmq.com/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>rabbitmq-discuss</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>