Hello, 2012/1/26 Martin Sustrik <[email protected]>: > On 01/26/2012 11:13 AM, Michael Craig wrote: >> In a bunch of the marketing copy, ZeroMQ claims to handle N-to-N >> topologies. Is this actually true? It would seem not, since one side of >> a Push/Pull or Pub/Sub topology has to bind (which only one node can >> do). The closest I can figure out is an N-to-1-to-N topology with some >> kind of router in the middle. Does ZeroMQ actually provide some way to >> eliminate that single point of failure in the middle? > > You can have a device in a middle or you can use multicast which boils > down to using network switch as a device in the middle. > > A solution to eliminate SPoFs that's used quite often in environments > with high reliability requirements is to have 2 network switches and 2 > NICs in each box (each NIC is connected to each switch). That kind of > setup, combined with each 0MQ endpoint being connected to all the other > 0MQ endpoints does the job. > > It's of course a nightmare to manage, but sometimes the reliability > requirements are so high you want to go that way. >
In a more distributed and less "enterprisey" environment, one can imagine using some discovery protocol (broadcast, zeroconf, DNS...) to help autoconfigure nodes; there's nothing inherently limiting N-to-N situations in ZeroMQ but, at the same time, the library does not do peer searching for you. For a truly homogeneous setup, you probably will need two sockets per node, one PUB and one SUB, with some connect-back algorithm. > Martin > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev Jakub. _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
