Hi Edwin,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Edwin Amsler
edwinams...@thinkboxsoftware.com wrote:
So here I am, publishing messages through ZeroMQ's send() function at about
300MB/s, and my network's set to only send at 10MB/s.
This is kind of a big problem because, while I don't care if the
On 10/07/2012 1:59 AM, Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi Edwin,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Edwin Amsler
edwinams...@thinkboxsoftware.com wrote:
So here I am, publishing messages through ZeroMQ's send() function at about
300MB/s, and my network's set to only send at 10MB/s.
This is kind of a big
On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
On 10/07/2012 1:59 AM, Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi Edwin,
The behavior is intentional for pub/sub sockets. If you'd have only
one subscriber you could use push/pull. Push sockets block when reach
high water mark, so are Req sockets.
The
On 10/07/2012 11:00 AM, Chuck Remes wrote:
On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
On 10/07/2012 1:59 AM, Paul Colomiets wrote:
Hi Edwin,
The behavior is intentional for pub/sub sockets. If you'd have only
one subscriber you could use push/pull. Push sockets block when reach
high
So here I am, publishing messages through ZeroMQ's send() function at
about 300MB/s, and my network's set to only send at 10MB/s.
This is kind of a big problem because, while I don't care if the clients
loose data on their end, the server is either using its memory until it
crashes, or I'm
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Edwin Amsler
edwinams...@thinkboxsoftware.com wrote:
Ideally, when a HWM condition happened, send() would return false, then
I'd test EAGAIN so I could decide for myself whether I should drop the
message, or retry later. With that kind of functionality, I
Guh? Reeeaally? Through my testing the publisher never errored on send,
so I didn't test EAGAIN.
A large part of the project is in metaphorical pieces on the floor while
I redesign something. When I get it back together, I'll test this. Can
anyone else confirm that that's what happens even on
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Ian Barber ian.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
This is pretty much how it works with most socket types - if you use the
ZMQ_NOBLOCK flag, you'll get the EAGAIN if you've hit HWM.
Ian
You can see all of the HWM responses here:
http://api.zeromq.org/2-1:zmq-socket
Have you looked at the suicidal snail pattern?
http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#Slow-Subscriber-Detection-Suicidal-Snail-Pattern
-Michel
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Edwin Amsler
edwinams...@thinkboxsoftware.com wrote:
So here I am, publishing messages through ZeroMQ's send() function at
There doesn't seem to be anything about how it signals that the high
water mark happened. Unless I didn't read it thoroughly enough.
When a/ZMQ_PUB/socket enters an exceptional state due to having reached
the high water mark for a/subscriber/, then any messages that would be
sent to
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
There doesn't seem to be anything about how it signals that the high water
mark happened. Unless I didn't read it thoroughly enough.
When a ZMQ_PUB socket enters an exceptional state due to having reached the
high water mark for a
I prefer Edwin. I'll make a test case, then report back.
On 09/07/2012 3:52 PM, Chuck Remes wrote:
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
There doesn't seem to be anything about how it signals that the high
water mark happened. Unless I didn't read it thoroughly enough.
When
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Edwin Amsler
edwinams...@thinkboxsoftware.com wrote:
No need. I don't even care about subscribers. It's all about feeding the
sending state machine efficiently.
The SSP is about never getting to the point where the PUB socket drops
messages, because your
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Edwin Amsler wrote:
I prefer Edwin. I'll make a test case, then report back.
Noted for future posts. We look forward to hearing from you.
cr
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
14 matches
Mail list logo
