[zeromq-dev] Interesting Blog

Interesting blog about combining 0MQ, sqlite3 and tokyo cabinet can be found here: http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1273859940.html Martin ___ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Re: [zeromq-dev] New bug in pub/sub since multipart

Brian Granger wrote: > Hi, > > I am in the process of making sure the Python zeromq test suite passes > with the new multipart message stuff. We have a simple pub/sub tests > that is failing, that used to pass. Here is an outline of the > session: > > Process #1

Re: [zeromq-dev] ZMQ_SWAP/HWM/LWM eta?

Jon, > I've seen a couple of threads talking about these options being ported > into 2.0, and was wondering whether anyone has any idea when this might > happen? Obviously, I'm not looking for a hard date, but wondering > whether its weeks or months away. HWM/LWM should work as expected. SWAP

Re: [zeromq-dev] Proposal regarding PGM and ZMQ

Steven McCoy wrote: > On 15 May 2010 01:04, Pieter Hintjens > wrote: > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Martin Sustrik > wrote: > > > 1. RDATA cannot take precedence to ODATA > > 2. ODATA cannot take precedence to RDATA > >

Re: [zeromq-dev] Proposal regarding PGM and ZMQ

On 15 May 2010 01:04, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Martin Sustrik > wrote: > > > 1. RDATA cannot take precedence to ODATA > > 2. ODATA cannot take precedence to RDATA > > Perhaps this is more sophisticated than we can do, but it would seem > that the ideal design is

[zeromq-dev] ZMQ_SWAP/HWM/LWM eta?

Hi, I've seen a couple of threads talking about these options being ported into 2.0, and was wondering whether anyone has any idea when this might happen? Obviously, I'm not looking for a hard date, but wondering whether its weeks or months away. thanks, Jon _

[zeromq-dev] New bug in pub/sub since multipart

Hi, I am in the process of making sure the Python zeromq test suite passes with the new multipart message stuff. We have a simple pub/sub tests that is failing, that used to pass. Here is an outline of the session: Process #1 Process #2 import zmq

Re: [zeromq-dev] Proposal regarding PGM and ZMQ

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: > 1. RDATA cannot take precedence to ODATA > 2. ODATA cannot take precedence to RDATA Perhaps this is more sophisticated than we can do, but it would seem that the ideal design is to allow RDATA to take precedence over ODATA but only up to a

Re: [zeromq-dev] Proposal regarding PGM and ZMQ

Quoting Martin Sustrik : > Martin Sustrik wrote: > >> Yes. Something like this should be done. The question is what's the >> optimal algorithm given that on faulty links the portion on bandwidth >> needed for RDATA may be higher than 5% while with say IB it would be >> minimal... > > Thinking abou

Re: [zeromq-dev] Proposal regarding PGM and ZMQ

Martin Sustrik wrote: > Yes. Something like this should be done. The question is what's the > optimal algorithm given that on faulty links the portion on bandwidth > needed for RDATA may be higher than 5% while with say IB it would be > minimal... Thinking about it a bit more: 1. RDATA cannot

Re: [zeromq-dev] OpenPGM on windows

Great, thanks! From: zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org [mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org] On Behalf Of Steven McCoy Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:37 AM To: 0MQ development list Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] OpenPGM on windows On 14 May 2010 21:08, Robin Weisberg mailto:ro...@scout-tradi

Re: [zeromq-dev] Proposal regarding PGM and ZMQ

Hi Emmanuel, > When using PGM as multicast protocol, it is necessary to call the > zmq_setsockopt() call to tune the ZMQ_RATE option. > This option limits the bandwidth given to PGM. If you give a limited value for > ZMQ_RATE (let's say 20 % of the available bandwidth) and if the > publisher write

Re: [zeromq-dev] OpenPGM on windows

On 14 May 2010 21:08, Robin Weisberg wrote: > Is there any reason I can't do a windows build myself? From various threads > it seems there are some complications, so before I embark on the build > journey I want to make sure I'm not wasting my time. Any particular versions > of ZMQ/OpenPGM I shou

[zeromq-dev] OpenPGM on windows

I asked this in another thread (http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2010-May/003516.html) but was probably missed due to the title. What is the status of zeromq 2.x and OpenPGM? Has anybody had success using it? Any plans/eta for a binary in the near future? Would it include OpenPGM l

[zeromq-dev] Proposal regarding PGM and ZMQ

Hello all When using PGM as multicast protocol, it is necessary to call the zmq_setsockopt() call to tune the ZMQ_RATE option. This option limits the bandwidth given to PGM. If you give a limited value for ZMQ_RATE (let's say 20 % of the available bandwidth) and if the publisher writes its data in

Re: [zeromq-dev] Port of ZeroMQ to QNX 6.4

Hi Armin, > I have to come back to the polling issue of the QNX6 port. > > The defines for POLLNVAL and other POLLxy releated defines are > different for LINUX and QNX6. You mean the actual numeric values for the constants, right? That should be OK. > Is this the reason of the failed asse

Re: [zeromq-dev] Port of ZeroMQ to QNX 6.4

Hi Martin, I have to come back to the polling issue of the QNX6 port. The defines for POLLNVAL and other POLLxy releated defines are different for LINUX and QNX6. Is this the reason of the failed assertion? # Assertion failed: !(it->revents & POLLNVAL) (poll.cpp:170) Regards --Armin _