On Thursday, 6 December 2012 23:18:53 UTC, Keith Rarick wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Chad Kouse <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Just curious, why is it better to put all jobs through a single tube? > > In queueing theory terms, a single queue with N servers is more > efficient than N queues with one server each. In beanstalkd terms > a "queue" is a tube and a "server" is a worker. Now, since a > beanstalkd worker can listen on multiple tubes, having two tubes > is just as good as one tube if all workers are listening on both tubes. > The thing to avoid (unless of course there's a good reason for it) is > some workers on just one tube and other workers on a different tube. > > I have yet to find a good explanation online to convey intuition for > why this is so. It would make a good blog post. >
One thing I love about beanstalkd is its flexibility. For every approach that offers an efficiency advantage, there will be real-life exceptions where you want to organise the tubes and workers in a different way, and beanstalkd allows for so many different ways of configuring the workers and tubes to achieve different results. This is what led to my original question: what do people *actually* do, and what advantages and disadvantages have they found in those approaches. There are always little giants whose shoulders I aim to stand on ;-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beanstalk-talk" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/beanstalk-talk/-/RAbgbgM-p7IJ. 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.
