Hi James. (I assume you mean Shovel vs Federation).
Since federation has quite a pull-based model it might prove more fiddly
to use than shovel in a situation where you have a lot of satellite
brokers publishing to a central broker. I view shovel as a lower level
thing than federation, both have their uses...
On 19/03/12 14:26, James Carr wrote:
> While working on a new messaging topology for a client I've found
> myself wondering if a hybrid of shovel / federation might be a valid
> approach rather than just using federation. While I have several
> clusters that will be located in different geographical locations
> federated amongst themselves we have dynamically created "pods" that
> are really kind of mini-datacenters for each application. Basically
> each app has all the components it needs to function independently and
> if messaging is required to update data or do things across pods the
> pod will have it's own rabbitmq broker.
> The pods get spinned up and destroyed dynamically. I keep wondering if
> perhaps the pods should use shovel to shovel to the cluster on it's
> segment or if I should just setup my puppet modules to declared a
> federated exchange on the cluster for a freshly created pod? Both
> approaches seem valid (and I'll experiment with both anyway) but I'm
> just curious if anyone on the list has experience or recommendations
> with this kind of setup.
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss@... > https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss