Oliver,
> Martin Sustrik said the following on 11/19/2010 4:55 AM:
>> I think there are many possible audiences, however, we haven't yet
>> figured out who exactly is it going to be.
>>
>> Thus, the whole system should be open-ended allowing for later addition
>> of functionality. That's why I all
http://www.igvita.com/2010/11/17/routing-with-ruby-zeromq-device
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Hi Martin,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> Dhammika,
>
>> 1. When finalise function finds out that the initiation is over, it
>> sends command to itself, saying "unplug the engine and send it to
>> another thread".
>>
>> 2. The rest of the out_event executes.
>>
>> 3. The
Hi,
I am trying to use java binding of 0MQ. Following are my questions/concerns
regarding it (Note that before writing this I tried to search mail archive
for relevant discussions to insure I am not repeating anything which is
previously, but might have missed something):
1. Why Socket/Poller/Cont
Martin Sustrik said the following on 11/19/2010 4:55 AM:
> I think there are many possible audiences, however, we haven't yet
> figured out who exactly is it going to be.
>
> Thus, the whole system should be open-ended allowing for later addition
> of functionality. That's why I alluded to /proc ps
On Nov 22, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Scott Asher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just querying about expecting behavior in 2.1.0. If I'm connecting a
> ZMQ_PAIR and I bind() one end and then send() before I connect the other end,
> my send() blocks, even though I've set HWM on the socket to 0, and I've got
> ZM
Hello,
Just querying about expecting behavior in 2.1.0. If I'm connecting a
ZMQ_PAIR and I bind() one end and then send() before I connect the other
end, my send() blocks, even though I've set HWM on the socket to 0, and I've
got ZMQ_NOBLOCK being set.
Is this expected?
Scott
__
That was the IOCP version, attached is the non-IOCP version using
non-blocking sockets. Pretty much the same.
On 22 November 2010 13:32, Steven McCoy wrote:
> Compare the previously sent FreeBSD & Linux at 10,000 pps with the attached
> Windows at 10,000 pps. You see a significant distribution
Compare the previously sent FreeBSD & Linux at 10,000 pps with the attached
Windows at 10,000 pps. You see a significant distribution of outliers.
On 21 November 2010 22:24, Steven McCoy wrote:
> Additional plots for Linux to Linux at 10,000, 20,000, and 30,000
> packets-per-second. Gnuplot fa
Managed to manually massage the 40,000 pps data to get Gnuplot to accept it.
It shows a greater range of latencies.
On 21 November 2010 22:24, Steven McCoy wrote:
> Additional plots for Linux to Linux at 10,000, 20,000, and 30,000
> packets-per-second. Gnuplot fails with the input data for 40,
Hi all,
As everyone is in favour of making Mikko Koppanen a build system
maintainer, I've added him to MAINTAINERS file.
From now on, both Mato Lucina and Mikko Koppanen can approve patches to
the build system.
Mikko, thanks for what you've done so far and welcome on board!
Martin
__
Dhammika,
1. When finalise function finds out that the initiation is over, it
sends command to itself, saying "unplug the engine and send it to
another thread".
2. The rest of the out_event executes.
3. The scheduler invokes processing of the event at this point. Thus,
out_event is not on the
Alexey,
> Current semantics of ZMQ_HWM (0 = no limit) mean that it's impossible
> to disable message queueing, which could be very useful in some
> applications. It would be great if default value of ZMQ_HWM has been
> changed to UINT64_MAX and ZMQ_HWM of 0 disabled queuing at all. Is
> there any
On 11/22/2010 02:38 PM, Joshua Foster wrote:
> One problem is that the HWM doesn't dynamically change in all cases. For
> example, setting the HWM on a PUB socket after calling a connect does not
> actually set the HWM.
Yes. HWM is applied to all subsequent connects and binds. The existing
conn
One problem is that the HWM doesn't dynamically change in all cases. For
example, setting the HWM on a PUB socket after calling a connect does not
actually set the HWM.
Joshua
On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Alexey Ermakov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Current semantics of ZMQ_HWM (0 = no limit) mean that it
Hi,
Current semantics of ZMQ_HWM (0 = no limit) mean that it's impossible
to disable message queueing, which could be very useful in some
applications. It would be great if default value of ZMQ_HWM has been
changed to UINT64_MAX and ZMQ_HWM of 0 disabled queuing at all. Is
there any downside to it
On 11/22/2010 09:02 AM, Dhammika Pathirana wrote:
> I'm not sure, does this resolve the race condition?
The idea is:
1. When finalise function finds out that the initiation is over, it
sends command to itself, saying "unplug the engine and send it to
another thread".
2. The rest of the out_ev
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 03:56 PM, Dhammika Pathirana wrote:
>
>> if (!plugged) is dereferencing this->plugged, but we've deleted this
>> object (engine).
>> So it's going to access deleted memory.
>
> Right.
>
>> Different option is to move engine del
18 matches
Mail list logo
