Hi Andriy, 2017-03-05 20:13 GMT+01:00 Andriy Drozdyuk <[email protected]>: > If you block the pub when the sub hits their HWM, then it wouldn't be > pub-sub anymore. > The one positive property of pub-sub is that pub side never needs to worry > about the subs. This allows you to scale... to a lot of subs. > If you start placing at-least-once requirements on this, I suggest you don't > use pub-sub, but instead design your own protocol. > For example, all the queues like rabbitmq do this. > I think this is what you actually want - because sounds like you're not > willing to loose messages. > At some point you *have* to decide to shed some load, and I find this > article very nice: > http://ferd.ca/queues-don-t-fix-overload.html
Thanks for the article, that's very nice indeed. Generally speaking you're right. However I can argue that without the "at-least-once" requirement we are in the following scenario: I'm broadcasting a radio program at a speed where even the best radio receiver model available on the market is unable to correctly receive and decode the signal over the air. In such a scenario, for my application, I prefer to have the broadcaster publish less information (dropping it) so that at least 1 receiver is able to listen good music rather than publishing everything and have nobody listen to what is transmitted ... Francesco _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
