On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:16 AM, MinRK wrote:
> For instance, what would we do if there ever needs to be a context option
> that isn't an int?
In theory, using macros and a single function makes it easier to write
generic code; in practice since the property types are not consistent,
it's not wo
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:00 AM, KIU Shueng Chuan wrote:
> I think there was some effort from 2.2 to 3.2 to give ZMQ a more similar
> interface to regular sockets?
> e.g. Changing the send function to return the number bytes sent on success
> instead of 0.
This was Martin Sustrik's vision of 0MQ
On 18/01/13 09:10, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:00 AM, KIU Shueng Chuan wrote:
>
>> I think there was some effort from 2.2 to 3.2 to give ZMQ a more similar
>> interface to regular sockets?
>> e.g. Changing the send function to return the number bytes sent on success
>> inste
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> My goal was to allow at some point to substitute the user-space
> implementation (ZeroMQ) by kernel-space implementation without breaking
> applications too badly. Given that ZeroMQ is now evolving towards being a
> simple user-space async
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:16 AM, MinRK wrote:
>
> > For instance, what would we do if there ever needs to be a context option
> > that isn't an int?
>
> In theory, using macros and a single function makes it easier to write
> generic cod
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, MinRK wrote:
> In all, I'm no longer convinced there really is a better situation on this
> particular issue than what we currently have,
> because every approach has its drawbacks.
Well, what we have now is working, let's continue to make small careful changes.
I have 3 workers (REP) connected to a DLR socket. each worker takes a msg,
processes and responds... however, as the DLR socket fair-queues.. requests
are sent like this...
1st -> 1st worker
2nd -> 2nd worker
3rd -> 3rd worker
4th -> 1st worker
problem is if the 1st worker is still busy with the 1
On 18 January 2013 15:14, Nishant Mittal wrote:
> I have 3 workers (REP) connected to a DLR socket. each worker takes a msg,
> processes and responds... however, as the DLR socket fair-queues.. requests
> are sent like this...
> 1st -> 1st worker
> 2nd -> 2nd worker
> 3rd -> 3rd worker
> 4th -> 1
aah, i remember that now.. i'll look into it again.
my hope was DLR would "try" to fair queue but if the worker was not
accepting any more msgs.. DLR would try the other worker.. but its not
doing that.
thanks
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Andy Ballingall TF <
balling...@thefoundry.co.uk> wro
Your DLR has a send_hwm too, so it's going fair queue against its
outbound queues (which might not be full despite receiver not accepting
more). The mentioned load-balancing-message-broker or one of the
reliable request-response patterns in section 4 will probably serve you
better than trying
i see.. that might explain why DLR is blocking.. so do you think if i set
the SND buffer to 0 on the dealer.. this will work? effectively giving me a
load balanced broker?
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Stuart Brandt wrote:
> Your DLR has a send_hwm too, so it's going fair queue against its
0 would mean no limit. And it would either block or drop messages (I think).
You'll need a router socket
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Nishant Mittal wrote:
> i see.. that might explain why DLR is blocking.. so do you think if i set
> the SND buffer to 0 on the dealer.. this will work? effec
Btw I meant, it would block or drop messages if you use a HWM that is low
(but not 0). 0 should give you unlimited limit, but you will eventually
block or drop messages (tcp buffers filling up, etc).
Better load balancing will be achieved by using a router socket
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM,
thanks Harsh
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Harsh Doshi wrote:
>
> Btw I meant, it would block or drop messages if you use a HWM that is low
> (but not 0). 0 should give you unlimited limit, but you will eventually
> block or drop messages (tcp buffers filling up, etc).
> Better load balancin
so to implement this the broker would keep a list of workers.. what if a
worker crashes and the router tries to send to it.. the guide mentions that
the msg would be silently dropped. can I set option SET_ROUTER_MANDATORY so
the send command returns an error and I try another connected worker?
On
I installed zeromq and the perl module on my home machine but when i try to
run the worker or client i get these errors...anybody has any clue?
$ ./test_client.pl 1
Subroutine ZMQ::LibZMQ3::zmq_init redefined at
/usr/local/lib/perl/5.14.2/ZMQ/LibZMQ3.pm line 52.
Subroutine ZMQ::LibZMQ3::zmq_term r
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Nishant Mittal wrote:
> I installed zeromq and the perl module on my home machine but when i try
> to run the worker or client i get these errors...anybody has any clue?
>
> $ ./test_client.pl 1
> Subroutine ZMQ::LibZMQ3::zmq_init redefined at
> /usr/local/l
Pedro, beat you to it.
https://metacpan.org/release/DMAKI/ZMQ-LibZMQ3-1.08/
--d
2013/1/19 Pedro Melo
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Nishant Mittal wrote:
>
>> I installed zeromq and the perl module on my home machine but when i try
>> to run the worker or client i get these error
18 matches
Mail list logo
