Hi Pieter, I really like your approach. For us, with a few thousand servers distributed over a few thousand computers, the compatibility between new versions of the protocol is crucial. For instance, now, we need to provide an interoperability layer to connect new (ZMQ) and old (CORBA) services/servers/clients. That's a huge effort. I can't really imagine doing it again :) So, without protocol versioning we would be simply stuck with a certain version of ZMQ.
I also like all the new upgrades, especially the additions concerning the security. We run on a private network and for internal purpose we have our own security layer on-top... But it's impossible to address efficiently some of the problems that the new protocol should help to solve. As for the memory allocation, for us embedded systems are as important as hard RT... and then, the only solution is to set constraints and preallocated on start-up. But this calls for another big discussion. Cheers, Andrzej ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Pieter Hintjens [[email protected]] Sent: 02 May 2013 15:56 To: ZeroMQ development list Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] a hot discussion on ZMQ vs YAMI; evaluation of middleware we did at CERN at the end of 2011 Hi Andrzej, Thanks for this PDF, it's really interesting. I'm curious to know your opinion of the work we're doing on the wire protocol (ZMTP), which is now in v3.0 in draft stage (rfc.zeromq.org/spec:23). The goal is to ensure that different implementations can talk together safely, over a long timeframe. -Pieter On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andrzej Dworak <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > First of all I should have sent that paper more than a year ago, sorry. > Hopefully it will be still of some value... In fact it was only a very > interesting discussion at reddit that reminded me to send the small review we > did. Again, sorry for being late on that. > > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1d0pwj/yami4_vs_zeromq/ > > I hope 150k is not an issue for any box... > To sum up the paper: we have evaluated a number of middlewares in the context > of our requirements. A short description of each product is provided and how > it would fit into our system. The result - ZMQ fits perfectly in our > environment, better than anything else. For details on the requirements* and > why ZMQ is better for us than anything else with have tried see the paper. > > Best, > Andrzej > > *I guess our reqs are quite common to any big scalable distributed system > that needs to survive the next +10 years. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
