What is the right pattern to split many tasks to many different workers,
but where each task can only be taken once??
I thought that the PUB/SUB was fine, and it is as long as I have
num_workers tasks, but if I publish only one task for example they all
get the same one.
Should I maybe use a
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM, andrea crotti
andrea.crott...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the right pattern to split many tasks to many different workers,
but where each task can only be taken once??
Push/Pull, req/rep, or something with dealer router depending on the
degree of job management
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Ross McKillop r...@rsmck.co.uk wrote:
Thanks,
I was under the impression with PUSH / PULL it wouldn't retrieve messages sent
when, for any reason, the PULL is down
I would take a look at the guide - http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all -
and the documentation
2012/8/9 Ian Barber ian.bar...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM, andrea crotti
andrea.crott...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the right pattern to split many tasks to many different workers,
but where each task can only be taken once??
Push/Pull, req/rep, or something with dealer router
Steven, this is all VERY interesting to me, because just like Stuart,
I was planning on creating a bus as well. Since that won't work, I
thought of a quick hack, but I want to see if it is supported; can you
connect multiple multicast addresses to the same interface in ZMQ? My
thought is to make
On 9 August 2012 11:33, CFK cfkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Steven, this is all VERY interesting to me, because just like Stuart,
I was planning on creating a bus as well.
Bus across the network works as of this commit three years ago:
I installed a virtual Centos 5.8 and trying to compile it fails again
because autoconf is too old, now I started an yum update and let's see
if it works..
But if it doesn't it seems a bit too strict to me that there is no way
to compile zmq 2.2 even on Centos 5.8, isn't it?
Did anyone actually
Fwiw, zeromq is in the epel repository
On Aug 9, 2012 9:32 AM, andrea crotti andrea.crott...@gmail.com wrote:
I installed a virtual Centos 5.8 and trying to compile it fails again
because autoconf is too old, now I started an yum update and let's see
if it works..
But if it doesn't it seems
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:31:26PM +0100, andrea crotti wrote:
I installed a virtual Centos 5.8 and trying to compile it fails again
because autoconf is too old, now I started an yum update and let's see
if it works..
But if it doesn't it seems a bit too strict to me that there is no way
to
Question below - don't we still run into the multiple-listener problem?
On 8/9/12 11:20 AM, Steven McCoy wrote:
On 9 August 2012 11:33, CFK cfkar...@gmail.com
mailto:cfkar...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
can you
connect multiple multicast addresses to the same interface in ZMQ? My
In zeromq/3.2/src/atomic_ptr.hpp, we have the following code:
#elif defined ZMQ_ATOMIC_PTR_ARM
T *old;
unsigned int flag;
__asm__ volatile (
dmb sy\n\t
1: ldrex %1, [%3]\n\t
mov %0,
On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer wrote:
I would have posted this on a bug tracker, but there doesn't seem to
be any Issues link on the Github page and the official bug tracker
at zeromq.jira.com is dead, so I figure this mailing list is the best
chance we have of getting the issue
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com wrote:
On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer wrote:
I would have posted this on a bug tracker, but there doesn't seem to
be any Issues link on the Github page and the official bug tracker
at zeromq.jira.com is dead, so I
I'm interested in Stuart's question as well, but I'm also interested
in the addresses you showed (e.g.,
epgm://192.168.1.11;239.168.1.10,239.168.1.12,239.168.1.13,239.168.1.11:5000).
Where is that addressing form documented? I looked at both the 2.2
and 3.3 documentation and I didn't see it.
Filed as https://zeromq.jira.com/browse/LIBZMQ-414 .
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer art...@push.am wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Chuck Remes li...@chuckremes.com wrote:
On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer wrote:
I would have posted this on a bug tracker,
On 9 August 2012 15:26, CFK cfkar...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm interested in Stuart's question as well, but I'm also interested
in the addresses you showed (e.g.,
epgm://192.168.1.11;239.168.1.10,239.168.1.12,239.168.1.13,
239.168.1.11:5000).
Where is that addressing form documented? I looked
On 8 August 2012 16:28, Stuart Levy sal...@illinois.edu wrote:
This seems to be due to a kernel/glibc bug in getifaddrs(), which
returns a strange ifa_name for Infiniband interfaces with IPV6
addresses. But libpgm's response shouldn't be to crash the program. I
patched it as follows to
On 7 August 2012 09:01, Pierre Ynard linkfa...@yahoo.fr wrote:
For information, my personal transfer rate should be minimal enough, so
I'm inclined to spare myself extra TCP or IPC sockets for the loopback
case; that wouldn't fix the multiple sender issue anyway.
I've been thinking of
On 9 August 2012 17:33, CFK cfkar...@gmail.com wrote:
And... I hit send too quickly. Do I need both a publishing socket and a
receiving socket with this form of the address? The way I'm interpreting
what you said earlier, I'm guessing that:
mySocket.connect(epgm://192.168.1.11
19 matches
Mail list logo
