Hi Gordon, Thanks, again, for your replies. I started looking at the code to see about implementing acknowledgements in the Qpid driver and I'll admit after some digging I've come up confused. These lines (it's in master as well as the stable icehouce branch) http://git.io/w3KkQw and http://git.io/SiO5cg suggest that acknowledgements *are* sent by the qpid driver when messages are consumed. Am I making too broad an assumption here?
Thanks! -Aaron On Oct 16, 2014, at 7:23 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/14/2014 10:48 PM, Aaron Knister wrote: >> The fixes to all 3 of these issues seem to be patches to the rabbit >> driver for oslo. Are the other drivers (e.g. qpid) any more robust or >> are they just not heavily used so more bugs may be lurking there? > > As mentioned, the qpid driver does not use acknowledgements for messages > received from the broker at all, which means messages can be lost in transit > (sent, but never received). It does share some code/concepts with the rabbit > driver, including the same concept of configurable durability and autodelete > which applies only in certain contexts (and not for example in reply queues, > again allowing message loss). > > So certainly using the qpid driver will not decrease the chance of a failure > of some type resulting in an RPC failure. > > My view is that a clearer statement of intent is required around the design > for reliability, against which that design and indeed the implementation(s) > can be evaluated. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
