<div dir="ltr">Matthias,<div><br></div><div style>Sorry, I meant to say the master queue process. Can you comment on my previous question assuming that correction?<br><br>Regards,</div><div style><br></div><div style>Richard</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Matthias Radestock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">matthias@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 19/03/13 20:56, Richard Raseley wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thank you for your quick response. With regard to your suggestion on<br>
using a specific replica count via the "exactly" ha-mode - wouldn't<br>
there still be a bottleneck in the master node of the cluster? My<br>
understanding is that it has a hand in all operations (obviously true in<br>
a cluster with ha queues), but that it is in-line with all<br>
non-publishing operation. Is this a correct understanding?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
There's no such thing as a master node for a *cluster*. There is for individual queues. Different queues can have their masters on different nodes.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Matthias.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>