Ian Barber <ian.barber <at> gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM, RohanB <rohanb <at> cs.uchicago.edu> wrote: > > > > Its going to be really hard to reproduce this one. > > > > It works perfectly on one box and not the other. Same build. Here's the > > difference though. The box on which it works is 64 bit SuSe. The one where it > > doesn't is a 32 bit SuSe. > > > > By the way, the publisher works perfectly on both boxes. Its just the subscriber > > that has issues. > > > > How consistently does it fail when setup in the failing configuration? > If it's reliably enough it would be interesting perhaps to get a > packet capture between the two (possibly one the other away as well to > look for differences). There were some issues a while ago where the > identity could get lost if there were failures of a certain type - I > know those were resolved, but it would be interesting to see if there > issue is in the handling of the message or the sending. > > Ian >
Hi Ian Thanks for the follow up. Yes, it consistently fails when setup on the failing box. Note again that the publisher always, its just the subscriber that just won't come up. I doubt we need a packet capture here because the entire thing happens before any package exchange takes place. What I mean is there is no publisher running when I bring up the subscriber on the failing box. Even then its aborts with the assertion. You see what I mean? I am pretty certain I need some configuration on the failing box that the other box has and I just can't figure out what. Could you give me some info on the earlier issue you mentioned and what the assert means? I would be happy to help resolve this issue in any way I can. Rohan _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
