okay. that is exactly pub/sub. so now the problem is exactly what properties are you trying to maintain as part of your "synchronizing"?
On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:38 AM, Nathan Marz wrote: > I think I was unclear. I don't want the load balancing behavior and instead > want the pusher to send the message to all the pullers it's connected to. > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Andrew Hume <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- > 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
