Ehm sorry... The low load connection (PUB2) publish 50-500 msg *each day*with an average size of 200 bytes.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your feedback. > > The heavy load connection (PUB1) publish 50-100 msg/s (with few daily > peaks at 1000 msg/s). Such messages are between 50 bytes and 200 bytes in > size (almost 3/4 of messages are 200 bytes long). > The low load connection (PUB2) publish 50-500 msg/s with an average size > of 200 bytes. > > I have exactly 2 subscribers for PUB1 and 1 subscriber for PUB2. > > As for the latency, all connections are local (127.0.0.1, with a port for > PUB1 and another for PUB2). I would use a simpler protocol than tcp, since > all I need is an ipc channel, but I'm on windows 7. > > > Giacomo > PS: on HWM and pub/sub: I'm not an expert, but it looks reliable from my > tests. Isn't it? > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Gerry Steele <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On a tangent... Does high watermark=0 really make pub/ sub fully >> reliable? Wasn't my understanding. Could be wrong. >> >> How big are the messages you are sending? >> >> Can you reproduce on same hardware with a hello world pub sub for >> messages of the same size? >> On 14 Mar 2014 15:06, "Giacomo Tesio" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, I'm getting 5 to 10 seconds delay in on a pub/sub socket with low >>> load (in a context with heavy load on other sockets). >>> >>> I'm using NetMQ on Windows 7, with tcp transport on 127.0.0.1 (indeed it >>> should be ipc, but it's not supported on Windows AFAIK). >>> >>> This is the topology: >>> >>> We have Server A, Client B and Client C. >>> >>> Server binds a PUB with heavy load (let's call it PUB1), publishing >>> 50-100 msg/s with few daily peaks at 1000 msg/s. >>> >>> Server binds a PUB with small load (let's call it PUB2). publishing >>> 50-500 msg *each day*. Note however that these messages are sent in >>> groups of 1 to 5 in a few milliseconds. >>> >>> Client B connect with a SUB socket to PUB1, >>> Client C connects with two SUB socket to PUB1 and PUB2. >>> >>> My issue is that when a group of messages is sent in PUB2, the first is >>> received almost instantly from Client C, but the others are received >>> seconds after, at seconds of distances. >>> >>> For example, here are a few times from today problems. >>> >>> Sent from Server A -> Received from Client C >>> 09:00:59.608 -> 09:01:05.643 >>> 09:01:00.055 -> 09:01:05.64 >>> 09:01:00.117 -> 09:01:10.928 >>> 09:01:02.883 -> 09:01:16.172 >>> 09:01:05.541 -> 09:01:18.754 >>> >>> >>> How can I reduce this delay? >>> I tried to increase the ThreadPoolSize up to the number of CPUs, but >>> without success. >>> Note that I (must) have HighWaterMark = 0 on every socket (I can't loose >>> messages), but the machine is full of free memory (4 GB are always free) >>> and never use more than 40% of each cpu. >>> >>> >>> Giacomo >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
