No need. I don't even care about subscribers. It's all about feeding the sending state machine efficiently.
On 09/07/2012 3:41 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote: > 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 > <[email protected]> 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 clients >> loose data on their end, the server is either using its memory until it >> crashes, or I'm setting its high water mark and loosing about 29 of every >> thirty messages I produce because I don't know that ZeroMQ can't keep up. >> >> 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 could throttle back my >> producer algorithm so that I exactly meet the demand of ZeroMQ instead of >> overwhelming/starving it out. >> >> I'm willing to do the work if this sort of addition makes sense to the rest >> of the project. I'd rather contribute here instead of forking it off in some >> forgotten repository. >> >> Can/should this be done? Is there someone out there willing to mentor me? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Edwin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
