<div dir="ltr">Michael,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your quick reply.</div><div><br></div><div>Will you expand more on your statement "[I]<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">t's a little more complicated than '1 queue per core'."?<br>
</span><br>Thank you for your suggestion on sharding, I will review the link you provided.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Richard</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Michael Klishin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">michael@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"><br>
On oct 4, 2013, at 9:44 p.m., Michael Klishin <<a href="mailto:michael@rabbitmq.com">michael@rabbitmq.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> The key issue with this is ordering. E.g. if your stream must be ordered (e.g. CI build<br>
> log chunks must be), it is trickier but certainly doable. If not, you can parallelize the<br>
> stream between many queues pretty trivially.<br>
<br>
</div>To add to this, you can put extra information into message headers to help you<br>
reconstruct the order of chunks.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
MK<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>