Hi Pieter 29.10.2011, 02:50, "Pieter Hintjens" <p...@imatix.com>: > This discussion was quite polarised. Users want monitoring, but devs > argue that monitoring is a Bad Thing.
I am definitely a user ;) To be honest I don't believe monitoring is bad in general. The only reason comes to my mind to call it "Bad" is performance consideration (performance is my top priority, so I understand this point of course) Anything else? > Here is my best advice: > > * do not use HWMs or monitoring to control flow Agree that current facilities do not allow to do it effectively. > * use explicit credit-based flow control when it's needed: e.g. > http://unprotocols.org/blog:15 Thanks. Nice code. > * elsewhere, use a HWM of 1000 or so (new default value) Not sure I understand how it is possible to suggest HWM value regardless of application specific. > * when you want explicit queue management, do this in user space by > pulling messages off 0MQ and storing them in your own queue structure Yes, we do pure man flow control at application level. It is acceptable but not perfect, and I believe it would be put inside 0mq eventually. Though right now I am focused on monitoring, not control things. I need a way to obtain queues sizes to maintain my SNMP counters. Could you suggest better interface than getsockopt? Any ideas how to handle multiple peers (at least from API standpoint)? Thanks. -- Best regards, Ilja Golshtein. _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
