it does exactly as you wish. push pull supports multiple pushers and multiple pullers. it does fair cheduling amongst the pushers and load balancing across the pullers. i use this paradigm all the time.
although, i think push/pull doesn't work so well with multicast transport. On Jan 30, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Nathan Marz wrote: > I asked about this on irc, but I'd like to get more information on this. In > the system I'm building, I need to push messages to multiple workers. The > sender knows who all the receivers are, but push sockets only support > load-balancing and not pushing to all the receivers. > > I was told I should use pub/sub for this functionality, but this seems > needlessly complex if I want to ensure no messages lost as it requires a > synchronization step. The system I'm building has fault-tolerance built at > the software layer, so publishers/receivers can change over time as machines > go down and tasks get reassigned. Synchronizing new publishers and receivers > mid-processing is not desirable. > > Are there technical reasons why multicasting from a push socket to multiple > pull sockets is not desirable? Alternatively, are there any major drawbacks > to having the sender open up a separate push socket to each receiver? > > Thanks, > Nathan > > -- > Twitter: @nathanmarz > http://nathanmarz.com > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev ------------------ Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845 [email protected] (Work) +1 none currently AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
