Open Stack

Kei/Ray:

I recieved this response from Eugene about the mirrored queue but I just noticed it never hit the list. It was cc'd to the list but i think it was sent from an email that is not subscribed. It looks like we are fine making it mirrrored.

Vish

On Feb 1, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Eugene Kirpichov <ekirpichov at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention to the openstack-dev mailing lists lately, as I changed company.
> 
> So, on the topic: Yes, all queues, including reply queues, must be mirrored; if some aren't, that's a bug.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda at gmail.com> wrote:
> It was Eugene Kirpichov,
> 
> I've added him to the cc in case he is filtering the -dev mail.
> 
> Vish
> 
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:33 PM, Ray Pekowski <pekowski at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, <masumotok at nttdata.co.jp> wrote:
>> What I am trying to say is, TopicConsumer's queue is declared with
>> {'x-ha-policy': 'all'}
>> <snip> 
>> We can see same declaration at FanoutConsumer, but not DirectConsumer.
>> As you know, rpc.call() send request through TopicConsumer, and return values  thorough DirectConsumer. So if TopicConsumer is mirrored, DirectConsumer also should be mirrored, I think.
>> 
>> Does anyone know who made the changes for this x-ha-policy/mirroring code in impl_kombu.py?  We want to know if leaving mirror off of the RPC reply queue was intended or an oversight?  And if intended, why?
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Eugene Kirpichov
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/eugenekirpichov
> http://jkff.info/software/timeplotters - my performance visualization tools

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130211/cd978a57/attachment.html>