Re: [zeromq-dev] [PATCH] MSVC10 project files
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq? Thanks, Martin. It would be good if someone could update http://www.zeromq.org/docs:source-git to make clear that that repo isn't exclusively for 3.0 development... Stuart On 25/11/2011 21:07, Martin Sustrik wrote: > It's libzmq project on github. > > Martin > > On 11/25/2011 08:41 PM, Stuart Webster wrote: >> I think 3.1 should definitely provide MSVC2010 project files. >> >> Is there a public 3.1 repo to which I could contribute? >> >> Stuart >> >> >> On 20:59, Martin Sustrik wrote: >>> What do you think about moving 3.1 to MSVC2010 and leaving 2.1 as is? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On 11/25/2011 12:07 AM, Mikko Koppanen wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Stuart Webster wrote: > I think those are practical suggestions. Mikko raised the point > that we > shouldn't drop support for VC9 in a point release of 0MQ 2.1 for > reasons > of backwards compatibility. I'm not sure whether he was referring to > compatibility with other components or other toolsets. Could you > please > elaborate, Mikko? I can't see how backwards compatibility is a > significant issue. Hi, 2.1 series is currently stable and we cannot change the build files to MSVC10 format (which is not backwards compatible with the earlier versions) in the middle of the cycle. In my opinion stable doesn't mean just the code but also the tools around it including builds. We had a discussions about moving to CMake earlier but I don't think we can give up the autotools due to better cross compilation support. The impression I got from Steven is that CMake is not quite there yet regarding cross builds. Therefore I see very little benefit in adding CMake unless we replace the Windows project files with CMake completely. If not, this just adds another build system to maintain. >>> >>> >> > > > ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] [PATCH] MSVC10 project files
It's libzmq project on github. Martin On 11/25/2011 08:41 PM, Stuart Webster wrote: > I think 3.1 should definitely provide MSVC2010 project files. > > Is there a public 3.1 repo to which I could contribute? > > Stuart > > > On 20:59, Martin Sustrik wrote: >> What do you think about moving 3.1 to MSVC2010 and leaving 2.1 as is? >> >> Martin >> >> On 11/25/2011 12:07 AM, Mikko Koppanen wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Stuart >>> Webster wrote: I think those are practical suggestions. Mikko raised the point that we shouldn't drop support for VC9 in a point release of 0MQ 2.1 for reasons of backwards compatibility. I'm not sure whether he was referring to compatibility with other components or other toolsets. Could you please elaborate, Mikko? I can't see how backwards compatibility is a significant issue. >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 2.1 series is currently stable and we cannot change the build files to >>> MSVC10 format (which is not backwards compatible with the earlier >>> versions) in the middle of the cycle. In my opinion stable doesn't >>> mean just the code but also the tools around it including builds. >>> >>> We had a discussions about moving to CMake earlier but I don't think >>> we can give up the autotools due to better cross compilation support. >>> The impression I got from Steven is that CMake is not quite there yet >>> regarding cross builds. Therefore I see very little benefit in adding >>> CMake unless we replace the Windows project files with CMake >>> completely. If not, this just adds another build system to maintain. >>> >> >> > ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] [PATCH] MSVC10 project files
I think 3.1 should definitely provide MSVC2010 project files. Is there a public 3.1 repo to which I could contribute? Stuart On 20:59, Martin Sustrik wrote: > What do you think about moving 3.1 to MSVC2010 and leaving 2.1 as is? > > Martin > > On 11/25/2011 12:07 AM, Mikko Koppanen wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Stuart >> Webster wrote: >>> I think those are practical suggestions. Mikko raised the point that we >>> shouldn't drop support for VC9 in a point release of 0MQ 2.1 for >>> reasons >>> of backwards compatibility. I'm not sure whether he was referring to >>> compatibility with other components or other toolsets. Could you please >>> elaborate, Mikko? I can't see how backwards compatibility is a >>> significant issue. >> >> Hi, >> >> 2.1 series is currently stable and we cannot change the build files to >> MSVC10 format (which is not backwards compatible with the earlier >> versions) in the middle of the cycle. In my opinion stable doesn't >> mean just the code but also the tools around it including builds. >> >> We had a discussions about moving to CMake earlier but I don't think >> we can give up the autotools due to better cross compilation support. >> The impression I got from Steven is that CMake is not quite there yet >> regarding cross builds. Therefore I see very little benefit in adding >> CMake unless we replace the Windows project files with CMake >> completely. If not, this just adds another build system to maintain. >> > > ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] Why ZMQ drop messages?
Hi Chuck, On 25/11/2011 15:50, Chuck Remes wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I am using ZMQ 3.0.x on linux boxes with the PUB/SUB pattern. >>> I have only one subscriber which is very slow. It needs 1 second every >>> time a message is read. >>> I have a HWM on the publisher side set to 10. >>> >>> In my message, I have a counter which is incremented for each message. >>> My messages are relatively small (150 bytes) >>> I have a print of date each time the publisher sends a message >>> (gettimeofday) >>> I also have on the same host where the publisher is running a wireshark >>> tool which captures network packets. >>> >>> With wireshark, I see that ZMQ drops messages number 11 to 39. I don't >>> understand why. >>> All the previous messages (number 1 to 10) have been sent on the network >>> because I see them on wireshark >>> The time reported by wireshark is coherent with the time printed by the >>> publisher. > This is exactly how HWM is supposed to work. The "slow subscriber" exerts > back-pressure on the publisher. Until the SUB socket responds that it has > processed some messages, the PUB socket will drop messages. This is the > documented behavior (read the man pages, please). > > If you think this behavior is incorrect, please explain how it differs from > the documentation. > In fact, further tests shows that it does not depends on the time needed by the subscriber when it receives a message. Anyway, I was not clear enough in my explanations. If I see my messages on the net (wireshark tell me this), this means that they are not in the queue anymore. Messages can't be sent on the wire and in the queue. So, if messages are sent on the wire, why ZMQ thinks that the buffer is full and drop following messages? This is to understand this behavior that I have made further studies reported in the previous email. Regards Emmanuel ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] Why ZMQ drop messages?
On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel TAUREL wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have made further studies on the following point that I have recently > sent on this list. > > On 23/11/2011 17:16, Emmanuel TAUREL wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I am using ZMQ 3.0.x on linux boxes with the PUB/SUB pattern. >> I have only one subscriber which is very slow. It needs 1 second every >> time a message is read. >> I have a HWM on the publisher side set to 10. >> >> In my message, I have a counter which is incremented for each message. >> My messages are relatively small (150 bytes) >> I have a print of date each time the publisher sends a message >> (gettimeofday) >> I also have on the same host where the publisher is running a wireshark >> tool which captures network packets. >> >> With wireshark, I see that ZMQ drops messages number 11 to 39. I don't >> understand why. >> All the previous messages (number 1 to 10) have been sent on the network >> because I see them on wireshark >> The time reported by wireshark is coherent with the time printed by the >> publisher. This is exactly how HWM is supposed to work. The "slow subscriber" exerts back-pressure on the publisher. Until the SUB socket responds that it has processed some messages, the PUB socket will drop messages. This is the documented behavior (read the man pages, please). If you think this behavior is incorrect, please explain how it differs from the documentation. cr ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] Why ZMQ drop messages?
Hello everybody, I have made further studies on the following point that I have recently sent on this list. On 23/11/2011 17:16, Emmanuel TAUREL wrote: > Hello all, > > I am using ZMQ 3.0.x on linux boxes with the PUB/SUB pattern. > I have only one subscriber which is very slow. It needs 1 second every > time a message is read. > I have a HWM on the publisher side set to 10. > > In my message, I have a counter which is incremented for each message. > My messages are relatively small (150 bytes) > I have a print of date each time the publisher sends a message > (gettimeofday) > I also have on the same host where the publisher is running a wireshark > tool which captures network packets. > > With wireshark, I see that ZMQ drops messages number 11 to 39. I don't > understand why. > All the previous messages (number 1 to 10) have been sent on the network > because I see them on wireshark > The time reported by wireshark is coherent with the time printed by the > publisher. > > Message 8 sent by publisher at xxx623,205547 > Message 8 seen by wireshark at xxx623,205556 > > Message 9 sent by publisher at xxx623,205575 > Message 9 seen by wireshark at xxx623,205584 > > Message 10 sent by publisher at xxx623,205603 > Message 10 seen by wireshark at xxx623,205611 > > Message 11 sent by publisher at xxx623,205629 > Message 12 sent by publisher at xxx623,205654 > Message 13 sent by publisher at xxx623,205704 > Message 14 sent by publisher at xxx623,205729 > > > These messages are not seen by wireshark because I guess ZMQ took the > decision to drop them. > But why it took that decision? I don't think there are messages in the > queue because I have seen them on > the wire! > > Is there something I have missed? > Any explanations are welcome > > Thank's in advance > > Emmanuel > From what I have understood, the problem is the following. The pipe used for communication between my application subscriber thread and the zmq I/O thread is effectively marked as full (msgs_written - peers_msgs_read == uint64_t (hwm) in pipe.cpp file check_write method) even if I have seen my messages on the wire (shown by wireshark). The I/O thread as effectively sent the messages on the wire and it has sent the "activate_write" command to the pipe. When the subscriber thread sends a message, it process the pipe command list (method socket_base_t::process_commands()) but the "activate_write" commands are (they are several) not executed immediately. This is due to the code in this socket_base_t::process_commands() method just before the loop processing the commands. There is some code to optimize commands processing which takes the decision to return from this method before the commands are processed. If I comment out this part of the code, things works much better and I do not notice dropped messages. What do you think? Thank's for your help Emmanuel ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ module for Akka
> Hello ZeroMQ community, Hello Karim, > Also, there are no statistics for JNA's (Scala > binding) impact on the performance when comparing to JNI (JZMQ). It would be interesting to do some benchmarking here. JNI is usually the default path to a Java binding, but it might very well be the case that JNA is more efficient (I honestly don't know). -- Gonzalo Diethelm DCV Chile ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] [PATCH] MSVC10 project files
Hello all, On 25/11/2011 09:50, Mikko Koppanen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote: >> What do you think about moving 3.1 to MSVC2010 and leaving 2.1 as is? > Hi, > > for 3.1 this is fine, as it's not released as stable yet. Would it be > beneficial to add static builds on Windows as well? Is there demand > for this? This will definitively help us to have both windows static and dll libs Have a nice day Emmanuel ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] [PATCH] MSVC10 project files
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote: > What do you think about moving 3.1 to MSVC2010 and leaving 2.1 as is? Hi, for 3.1 this is fine, as it's not released as stable yet. Would it be beneficial to add static builds on Windows as well? Is there demand for this? -- Mikko Koppanen ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
