Sorry- one thing I forgot to mention (and this ties my post above back to the subject of this thread). A big difference in these two approaches are the number of tubes I'll need.
In the first approach, I'm going to have 'lots' of tubes (O10^3). In the second approach I'll peter out at (O10^2). Vivek On Sep 22, 12:55 pm, VR1 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi group, > > I'm thinking through my architecture and am interested in getting some > design feedback from those with practical experience. I have a lot of > small tasks that form a directed graph when you view their sequence of > execution. > > As I see it, I have 2 choices on how to implement these tasks with > beanstalk: > [1] I could have lot of tubes that are chained together > (Job1->Job2->Job3->Job4, etc). > > [2] Or, I could have 'controller' tubes that 'drones' (re-useable > consumers) call once their work is complete > (Controller->Drone1->Controller->Drone2->Controller->Drone3). The controller > would query > > the status of the overall work from a persistent source that the > drones would write to. > > How have other architected this? Are there other patterns people use > here? > > Vivek -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beanstalk-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beanstalk-talk?hl=en.
