Thanks, there was also an error in my error handling thus why it was never flagged. I imagine its the same in my app code. uint64_t came from the cli argument handling lib thus why it was used over int. A lesson learned there.
On 16 June 2014 19:13, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > And indeed, this code prints "-1" as the return code: > > void *context = zmq_ctx_new (); > void *publisher = zmq_socket (context, ZMQ_PUB); > uint64_t rhwm = 0; > int rc = zmq_setsockopt (publisher, ZMQ_SNDHWM, &rhwm, sizeof (rhwm)); > printf ("RC=%d\n", rc); > > -Pieter > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > -- Gerry Steele
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
