[rabbitmq-discuss] Unexaplainable behaviour with shovel plugin.

Tue Mar 4 19:42:10 GMT 2014

Well, true shovels can push or pull.  One thing though is I don't think
federation can do a push - or did I miss that?

Jason

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Laing, Michael <michael.laing at nytimes.com>wrote:

> Actually shovels can be configured to push or pull - we use them both ways.
>
> Our proxies are passive (no shovels) with well-known addresses - we use
> shovels to push and pull to them from both sides.
>
> Our retail layer autoscales but the wholesale layer has known addresses -
> we run shovels in the retail instances, some pushing and some pulling.
>
> Soon we will be using serf gossiping for topology/address/role discovery
> in nyt⨍aбrik, and the need for known addresses will diminish greatly.
>
> ml
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jason McIntosh <mcintoshj at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> The big thing for us was it was a push vs. pull mechanism.  In a
>> distributed system, where we have a lot of nodes talking to an enterprise,
>> it's much more efficient to have the nodes shovel to the enterprise than to
>> have to have the enterprise have to know about every server connected to
>> it.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Simon MacMullen <simon at rabbitmq.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/02/2014 6:14PM, Ben Hood wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using federation to implement an AMQP gateway seems like a common
>>>> pattern. One wonders why it didn't go into the AMQP spec ....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I dunno, I think federation is really quite specific (I don't think
>>> there are any other brokers which do it in the same way as RabbitMQ) - I
>>> can see the spec authors not wanting to predict how people will want to
>>> federate.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Initially I had thought that the 'new' federation replaced the 'old'
>>>>> shovel,
>>>>> but this is not true - each tool has its place although their
>>>>> capabilities
>>>>> overlap.
>>>>>
>>>>> With easier configuration in 3.3, the lowly shovel may get its due!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting to see that the shovel still lives on, despite it
>>>> being quite an agricultural component.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the concept ("I just want to move the damn messages!") makes a
>>> lot of sense.
>>>
>>> If I were creating RabbitMQ from scratch, I might rename the shovel to
>>> something like "point-to-point federation" to make it a bit clearer that it
>>> complements federation rather than being replaced by it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers, Simon
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon MacMullen
>>> RabbitMQ, Pivotal
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>>> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jason McIntosh
>> https://github.com/jasonmcintosh/
>> 573-424-7612
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>
>

-- 
Jason McIntosh
https://github.com/jasonmcintosh/
573-424-7612
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20140304/5d1cdc63/attachment.html>