> Redundancy on the same host is retarded you are wasting resources to > catch less 0.01% error scenarios that don't bring down the entire host > or network;scaling sounds like a bad design: split the channel up into > many separate PGM sessions with rate limited senders and your data > stream load balanced across them. It is becoming popular to automate > this load-balancing but 0MQ does not yet implement such a feature: > TIBCO Rendezvous 8 does.
I'm not talking about redundancy and scalability of the transport channel, but of my business stuff. > The UDP loopback network stack is broken for anything above minimal > transfer rates. For information, my personal transfer rate should be minimal enough, so I'm inclined to spare myself extra TCP or IPC sockets for the loopback case; that wouldn't fix the multiple sender issue anyway. > It has been this way a long time and can be easily reproduced with > multicast testing tools. Windows fairs better as sockets are handled > outside of the kernel but performance is significantly worse. > On Solaris and other UNIX flavours this is true, however as noted > before on Linux it is broken. That's interesting. Do you have any pointers to discussions about the roots of this? All I could find was stuff related to the basics I mentioned earlier. -- Pierre Ynard "Une âme dans un corps, c'est comme un dessin sur une feuille de papier." _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
