On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Aaron Bentley <[email protected]> wrote: > But I don't think we should rush into 3. I think that our needs are not > especially unique, and existing solutions may come pretty close to > offering what we need, even before we start building on top of them. I > have trouble imagining that RabbitMQ, by itself, would be better for us > than running Celery on top of RabbitMQ.
Thanks for the great explanation! Using Celery on top of RabbitMQ sounds like a fantastic option. In a case like that, we still benefit from tools which tie into RabbitMQ directly for example nagios checks monitoring that the broker is alive, and we still benefit from Rabbit having security support. This reminds me a bit of PostgreSQL, where we primarily use storm rather than raw SQL, but we still get the benefits of being able to use other tools which connect to PostgreSQL directly. Celery is not currently packaged in Debian or Ubuntu, although there is an ITP bug for django-celery which is distinct from what we've been talking about. Perhaps packaging of Celery for Ubuntu would be a good thing to request of the platform team at the upcoming UDS. Are there any drawbacks or limitations in using Celery+RabbitMQ that I could help with getting addressed upstream? -- Elliot Murphy | https://launchpad.net/~statik/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
