Hope this thread isn't dead.
Mike - thanks for highlighting some really key issues at scale.
On a related note, can someone from the Ceilometer comment about the store and
forward requirement? Currently scaling RabbitMQ is non-trivial. Though cells
help make the problem smaller, as Paul
On 11/12/13 09:31 -0500, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 12/10/13 at 11:09am, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/13 17:37 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 12/09/2013 05:16 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/09/2013 07:15 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
One other pattern that can benefit from intermediated
On 12/10/13 at 11:09am, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/13 17:37 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 12/09/2013 05:16 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/09/2013 07:15 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
One other pattern that can benefit from intermediated message flow is in
load balancing. If the
On 12/09/2013 10:37 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 12/09/2013 05:16 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/09/2013 07:15 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
Understood. The Dispatch Router was indeed created from an understanding
of the limitations and drawbacks of the 'federation' feature of qpidd
(which was the
On 12/09/2013 11:29 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 16:05 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
As $subject mentions, I'd like to start discussing the support for
AMQP 1.0[0] in oslo.messaging. We already have rabbit and qpid drivers
for earlier (and different!) versions of
On 12/10/2013 12:36 AM, Mike Wilson wrote:
This is the first time I've heard of the dispatch router, I'm really
excited now that I've looked at it a bit. Thx Gordon and Russell for
bringing this up. I'm very familiar with the scaling issues associated
with any kind of brokered messaging
On 10/12/13 12:15 +, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/09/2013 11:29 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 16:05 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Sounds sane to me.
To put it another way, assuming all AMQP 1.0 client libraries are equal,
all the operator cares about is that we have a driver
On 12/09/2013 04:10 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
From looking it appears that RabbitMQ's support is via an experimental
plugin. I don't know any more about it. Has anyone looked at it in
detail?
I believe initial support was added in 3.1.0:
On 12/09/2013 12:56 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
In the case of Nova (and others that followed Nova's messaging
patterns), I firmly believe that for scaling reasons, we need to move
toward it becoming the norm to use peer-to-peer messaging for most
things. For example, the API and conductor services
On 12/09/2013 05:16 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/09/2013 07:15 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 12/09/2013 12:56 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
In the case of Nova (and others that followed Nova's messaging
patterns), I firmly believe that for scaling reasons, we need to move
toward it becoming the norm to
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 16:05 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
As $subject mentions, I'd like to start discussing the support for
AMQP 1.0[0] in oslo.messaging. We already have rabbit and qpid drivers
for earlier (and different!) versions of AMQP, the proposal would be
to add an
This is the first time I've heard of the dispatch router, I'm really
excited now that I've looked at it a bit. Thx Gordon and Russell for
bringing this up. I'm very familiar with the scaling issues associated with
any kind of brokered messaging solution. We grew an Openstack installation
to about
Greetings,
As $subject mentions, I'd like to start discussing the support for
AMQP 1.0[0] in oslo.messaging. We already have rabbit and qpid drivers
for earlier (and different!) versions of AMQP, the proposal would be
to add an additional driver for a _protocol_ not a particular broker.
(Both
On 12/09/2013 10:05 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
As $subject mentions, I'd like to start discussing the support for
AMQP 1.0[0] in oslo.messaging. We already have rabbit and qpid
drivers for earlier (and different!) versions of AMQP, the proposal
would be to add an additional
14 matches
Mail list logo
