Re: [zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > Ian, did you mean to say "the other benefit of using PUSH/PULL"? > > -Andrei > No, I meant pub/sub. Just making the point there are some use cases PUBSUB is better for, but I would generally go for push pull. Clear advice always :) Ian ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
Ian, did you mean to say "the other benefit of using PUSH/PULL"? -Andrei On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Ian Barber wrote: > > The other benefit of using PUB/SUB is that you can connect to multiple > SUBs if need be, and they can select messages (or get all). This is the > reason mongrel2 uses it. Like Mikko says, if you use the noblock then you > can just drop messages in HWM state manually without much difficulty, and > you'll benefit from knowing that's happened (unlike in the PUBSUB case) - > but if you connected multiple PULL sockets, the messages would load balance > between them. > > Ian > > ___ > 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
Re: [zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Mikko Koppanen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Andrei Zmievski > wrote: > > I actually don't need to do subscription filtering, but I also don't > want to > > block on HWM, so that's why I was thinking of PUB-SUB model. > > > Hi, > > pub-sub will work for this scenario. If the Java process is something > that can be distributed you could explore PUSH (clients) and PULL > (server) for high-availability and splitting the load. You can still > do non-blocking writes or polling with timeout with PUSH. The other benefit of using PUB/SUB is that you can connect to multiple SUBs if need be, and they can select messages (or get all). This is the reason mongrel2 uses it. Like Mikko says, if you use the noblock then you can just drop messages in HWM state manually without much difficulty, and you'll benefit from knowing that's happened (unlike in the PUBSUB case) - but if you connected multiple PULL sockets, the messages would load balance between them. Ian ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > I actually don't need to do subscription filtering, but I also don't want to > block on HWM, so that's why I was thinking of PUB-SUB model. Hi, pub-sub will work for this scenario. If the Java process is something that can be distributed you could explore PUSH (clients) and PULL (server) for high-availability and splitting the load. You can still do non-blocking writes or polling with timeout with PUSH. -- Mikko Koppanen ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
I actually don't need to do subscription filtering, but I also don't want to block on HWM, so that's why I was thinking of PUB-SUB model. -Andrei On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Ian Barber wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Ian Barber wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote: >> >>> I have several C worker processes that need to send data to a single >>> Java process that will collect and aggregate it. I was thinking of binding >>> on a SUB socket in the Java process and then connecting to the same >>> endpoint on a PUB socket in each C one. Would this work or is there a >>> better pattern for this? >>> >>> -Andrei >>> >> >> It would work, but you'll probably find binding a PULL socket and having >> multiple processes PUSH to it will be a better bet, unless you want the >> drop on HWM properties of pubsub. >> >> Ian >> > > Oh, and hey Andrei! The other thing that comes to mind is if you wanted to > filter messages on your SUB side with the subscription matching. But you > would probably be better served by push/pull for most cases. > > Ian > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Ian Barber wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > >> I have several C worker processes that need to send data to a single Java >> process that will collect and aggregate it. I was thinking of binding on a >> SUB socket in the Java process and then connecting to the same endpoint on >> a PUB socket in each C one. Would this work or is there a better pattern >> for this? >> >> -Andrei >> > > It would work, but you'll probably find binding a PULL socket and having > multiple processes PUSH to it will be a better bet, unless you want the > drop on HWM properties of pubsub. > > Ian > Oh, and hey Andrei! The other thing that comes to mind is if you wanted to filter messages on your SUB side with the subscription matching. But you would probably be better served by push/pull for most cases. Ian ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Re: [zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > I have several C worker processes that need to send data to a single Java > process that will collect and aggregate it. I was thinking of binding on a > SUB socket in the Java process and then connecting to the same endpoint on > a PUB socket in each C one. Would this work or is there a better pattern > for this? > > -Andrei > It would work, but you'll probably find binding a PULL socket and having multiple processes PUSH to it will be a better bet, unless you want the drop on HWM properties of pubsub. Ian ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
[zeromq-dev] Multiple PUB -> one SUB?
I have several C worker processes that need to send data to a single Java process that will collect and aggregate it. I was thinking of binding on a SUB socket in the Java process and then connecting to the same endpoint on a PUB socket in each C one. Would this work or is there a better pattern for this? -Andrei ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
