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
__
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 use
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 fo
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
On Dec 12, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
>> 2. The application thread will push massages to the pipe and if the pipe
>> is full it will *block*.
>
>> Thoughts? Does anyone see any problem with this approach?
>>
>
> What would
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My proposal thus is to use rate control to control the behaviour. For
> example, user can set ZMQ_RATE to 10Mb/s and is expected to ensure that
> the network is capable of that load.
I think your rate based approach sounds great
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, Andre
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 proce
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 sock
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
fo
Hi Martin,
Talking about HWM, I would like to have some precisions on how ZMQ
(release 3) actually works
If I read the zmq_setsockopt man page, in the chapter about ZMQ_SNDHW,
it is written:
The high water mark is a hard limit on the maximum number of outstanding
messages 0MQ shall qu
Hi,
what is the roadmap for 2.1.11 to be released?
(https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq2-1/blob/master/NEWS)
Cheers,
--
Tuomas
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
12 matches
Mail list logo
