+1 This was our concern also with Trove. If a tenant DoSes Trove we
probably don't all get fired. The rest of rabbit is just too important to
risk sharing.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Sam Morrison <sorri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We run completely separate clusters. I’m sure vhosts give you acceptable
> security but it means also sharing disk and ram which means if something
> went awry and generated lots of messages etc. it could take your whole
> rabbit cluster down.
>
> Sam
>
>
> > On 17 Sep 2016, at 3:34 PM, Joe Topjian <j...@topjian.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We're planning to deploy Murano to one of our OpenStack clouds and I'm
> debating the RabbitMQ setup.
> >
> > For background: the Murano agent that runs on instances requires access
> to RabbitMQ. Murano is able to be configured with two RabbitMQ services:
> one for traditional OpenStack communication and one for the Murano/Agent
> communication.
> >
> > From a security/segregation point of view, would vhost separation on our
> existing RabbitMQ cluster be sufficient? Or is it recommended to have an
> entirely separate cluster?
> >
> > As you can imagine, I'd like to avoid having to manage *two* RabbitMQ
> clusters. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Reply via email to