[rabbitmq-discuss] Shovel failover

[Laing, Michael P.]

Thanks!

So it looks like I can give my shovels distinct names and keep y current
setup (if I want).

If a shovel has a distinct name, is it guaranteed to be started only on
the node on which it is configured?

-ml

On 5/2/13 11:02 AM, "Tim Watson" <tim at rabbitmq.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On 2 May 2013, at 15:43, Laing, Michael P. wrote:
>
>> Is the new failover scheme described somewhere? Couldn't find it.
>> 
>
>It's described briefly in the "Getting Started" section of
>http://www.rabbitmq.com/shovel.html.
>
>> Some of my configurations rely on shovels being set up differently for
>> each node in a cluster and that the shovel will stick to the node on
>>which
>> it is configured.
>> 
>
>I'd suggest taking a look at what it does now then. If the same (named)
>shovel is defined on two nodes that are clustered, it will run on only
>one of them.
>
>> The reason for these configurations (backup strategy to compensate for
>> partitioning) may have become moot nowŠ
>> 
>
>Perhaps - please let us know if that's not the case.
>
>> However, I have gotten pretty used to the shovel just being a
>> straightforward, well-behaved application on a single node, driven by
>>that
>> node's configuration. If it now jumps around among nodes in the cluster
>> automatically then it is no longer straightforward - let's hope it is
>> still well-behaved!
>> 
>
>Indeed. Sadly, it looks like we have broken the default reconnect_delay
>setting that was previously available. I've filed a bug to fix that.
>Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
>
>Cheers,
>Tim
>_______________________________________________
>rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss