really? i care about monitoring. and while i have stated here repeatedly that it is a significant pain in the arse that zeromq won't give me any idea of teh queue length (and please, we udnerstand all about the necessary imprecisions involved -- there is no earthly reason why an estimate couldn't be provided!), i drank the kool-aid and did app-level monitoring and have honestly never looked back. i 'm sure it has a performance impact, but it seems insignificant compared to all the other work going on. i do the monitoring in perhaps an odd way, which i could talk about separately, but still flushing messages through a quick recv/send loop seems effcicient to me.
andrew On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:48 AM, Ilja Golshtein wrote: > Hello > > 31.10.2011, 03:24, "Pieter Hintjens" <p...@imatix.com>: >> * use explicit app-level queues where it makes sense, and monitor those >> myself > > Pieter, people who don't care about monitoring can follow your advice, but > they would not > because they don't care. > People who care about monitoring actually cannot, > because suggested approach affects performance in terrible way. > That why I've started this thread. > > Regarding getsockopt. Do you believe any attempt to expose peer-specific info > at API layer is not acceptable? > > Thanks. > > -- > Best regards, > Ilja Golshtein. > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev ------------------ Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845 and...@research.att.com (Work) +1 973-236-2014 AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev