Hmm, it does check the size of the passed argument, and if that's wrong, returns an error (which you do check for).
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Gerry Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pieter, you have struck on something there. > > Converting it to int seems to yield the correct behaviour. > > I guess the way setsockopt works type coercion doesn't happen. > > Embarrassing! But at least we got to the bottom of it. > > I was able to send billions of events without incurring loss. Apologies for > taking everyones time. > > Thanks all. > > g > > > > On 16 June 2014 18:22, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> OK, just to double check, you're using ZeroMQ 4.0.x? In your test case >> (which I'm belatedly looking at), you use a uint64_t for the hwm >> values; it should be int. Probably not significant. >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Gerry Steele <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > In the patent email I have links to the minimal examples on >> > gist.github.com >> > >> > Happy to open an issue and commit them later on if that's what you need. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > On 16 Jun 2014 14:43, "Pieter Hintjens" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Gerry, can you provide a minimal test case that shows the behavior? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Gerry Steele <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Peter. I can't try this out till I get home but it is looking >> >> > like >> >> > hwm overflows. >> >> > >> >> > If you run the utilities you notice the drops start happening after >> >> > precisely 1000 events in the first instance (which Is the default >> >> > hwm). >> >> > >> >> > There was another largely ignored thread about this recently >> >> > mentioning >> >> > the >> >> > same problem. >> >> > >> >> > I also tried setting the hwm values to a number greater than the >> >> > number >> >> > of >> >> > events and it seemed to have no effect either. >> >> > >> >> > g >> >> > >> >> > On 16 Jun 2014 09:32, "Pieter Hintjens" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Gerry Steele >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Big chunks of messages go missing mid flow and then pick up again. >> >> >> > There >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > no literature that indicates that is expected behaviour. >> >> >> >> >> >> Right. The two plausible causes for this are (a) HWM overflows, and >> >> >> (b) temporary network disconnects. You have excluded (a), though to >> >> >> be >> >> >> paranoid I'd probably add some temporary logging to libzmq's pub >> >> >> socket to shout out if/when it does hit the HWM. To detect (b) you >> >> >> could use the socket monitoring. The third possibility is that >> >> >> you're >> >> >> doing something wrong with subscriptions... though that seems >> >> >> unlikely. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Pieter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > > > > > -- > Gerry Steele > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
