i set the SND_HMW to 9000000 on the pub process and RCV_HMW to 9000000 on the sub process fixed the issue.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Gerry Steele <gerry.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > That doesn't make sense. Did you set hwm on both sides of the connection? > On 28 Apr 2015 17:26, "Peter Krey" <k...@ripple.com> wrote: > >> this fixed it so that the pub can hold up to a few seconds of throughput >> in memory >> >> int hwm = 9000000; >> publisher.setsockopt( ZMQ_SNDHWM, &hwm, sizeof (hwm)); >> >> the documentation said that a hwm of zero would never flood; i think what >> happened was memory couldn't be allocated fast enough. my test app is >> sending a few million msgs/sec on the publisher. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Peter Krey <k...@ripple.com> wrote: >> >>> I have HWM set to zero on recv and pub. I am keeping track of sequence >>> numbers recved on the sub socket which are sent out by the pub socket. Here >>> is an example output. >>> >>> The pub socket is publishing a uint64_t seqNumber. If i change the >>> socket types to pair, no seqNumbers are ever missed. >>> >>> >>> seqNumber missed 2301000 >>> seqNumber missed 2303206 >>> seqNumber missed 2305000 >>> seqNumber missed 2306820 >>> seqNumber missed 2309353 >>> seqNumber missed 2311575 >>> seqNumber missed 2314514 >>> seqNumber missed 2316767 >>> seqNumber missed 2318000 >>> seqNumber missed 2319924 >>> seqNumber missed 2321730 >>> seqNumber missed 2323618 >>> seqNumber missed 2325000 >>> seqNumber missed 2326963 >>> seqNumber missed 2329000 >>> seqNumber missed 2330664 >>> seqNumber missed 2333000 >>> seqNumber missed 2334997 >>> seqNumber missed 2336000 >>> seqNumber missed 2338000 >>> seqNumber missed 2340000 >>> seqNumber missed 2343000 >>> seqNumber missed 2344933 >>> seqNumber missed 2346401 >>> seqNumber missed 2349000 >>> seqNumber missed 2351000 >>> seqNumber missed 2352309 >>> seqNumber missed 2354198 >>> seqNumber missed 2356000 >>> seqNumber missed 2357645 >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You can increase the HWM on sender and receiver to match your >>>> expectations. >>>> >>>> If you set the HWM to zero there will never be any message loss, which >>>> also means your publisher will explode if the subscriber stops >>>> reading. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Peter Krey <k...@ripple.com> wrote: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > What is the best way to get guaranteed in order delivery over pub-sub >>>> > framework in zmq using c++ on linux? >>>> > >>>> > I have a test server and client running zmq pub and sub sockets. The >>>> pub >>>> > pushes sequence numbers as fast as possible in a tight loop. The sub >>>> socket >>>> > misses around one in every 10k messages. >>>> > >>>> > Thanks >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > zeromq-dev mailing list >>>> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >>>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
