Hi Mark, Would you provide a minimal test case that demonstrates the problem?
Thanks Pieter On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Mark Sutheran <mark_suthe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I appear to have a issue with PUB/SUB apparently 'dropping' the first byte. > > Setup: > * Basic PUB/SUB running on same machine over TCP/localhost. > * Message has first 4 bytes as subscription id, rest payload > > Problem: > * On dev box runs fine > * On prod box the subscriber sees no messages > * The reason is that the received message is 'missing' the first byte > > Logs: > > Machine 1 (Ubuntu 12.04 64, JZMQ/ZMQ 3.2.0) runs fine, e.g.: > > 01:19:10:042 DEBUG [qtp1866572071-24] Publishing: [0, 0, 0, 13, -49, 0, 0, > 1, 62, -72, -90, -29, 63, 7, -108, -53, 63, -12, -122, -13, 110, -8, 5, 96, > -53, 64, 89, -9, -101, -128, 35, -90, -50, -53, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -53, > 64, 68, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] > 01:19:10:042 DEBUG [SubscriptionDataHandlerThread] Received data: [0, 0, 0, > 13, -49, 0, 0, 1, 62, -72, -90, -29, 63, 7, -108, -53, 63, -12, -122, -13, > 110, -8, 5, 96, -53, 64, 89, -9, -101, -128, 35, -90, -50, -53, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0, 0, 0, 0, -53, 64, 68, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] > > Machine 2 (Ubuntu 12.04 64, JZMQ/ZMQ 3.2.2) and the subscriptions > 'disappear'... digging into it the receiver appears to drop the first byte > of the messages 100% of the time, e.g.: > > 05:20:01:603 DEBUG [qtp1038722314-22] Publishing: [0, 0, 0, 13, -49, 0, 0, > 1, 62, -72, -90, 61, 85, 7, -108, -53, 63, -12, -122, -13, 110, -8, 5, 96, > -53, 64, 89, -9, -101, -128, 35, -90, -50, -53, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -53, > 64, 68, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] > 05:20:01:603 DEBUG [SubscriptionDataHandlerThread] Received data: [0, 0, 13, > -49, 0, 0, 1, 62, -72, -90, 61, 85, 7, -108, -53, 63, -12, -122, -13, 110, > -8, 5, 96, -53, 64, 89, -9, -101, -128, 35, -90, -50, -53, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > 0, 0, -53, 64, 68, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] > > Connecting Machine 1 (SUB) to Machine 2 (PUB) also produces the same > results. > > It's presumably an issue with my code however, it's the same code running on > both boxes. The one obvious difference is the ZMQ version, though I've not > seen this before and it doesn't seem to correspond to anything I can see on > the buglist. Any ideas? > > Thanks in advance, > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
