Hi Pieter, you have struck on something there. Converting it to int seems to yield the correct behaviour.
I guess the way setsockopt works type coercion doesn't happen. Embarrassing! But at least we got to the bottom of it. I was able to send billions of events without incurring loss. Apologies for taking everyones time. Thanks all. g On 16 June 2014 18:22, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: > OK, just to double check, you're using ZeroMQ 4.0.x? In your test case > (which I'm belatedly looking at), you use a uint64_t for the hwm > values; it should be int. Probably not significant. > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Gerry Steele <gerry.ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > In the patent email I have links to the minimal examples on > gist.github.com > > > > Happy to open an issue and commit them later on if that's what you need. > > > > Thanks > > > > On 16 Jun 2014 14:43, "Pieter Hintjens" <p...@imatix.com> wrote: > >> > >> Gerry, can you provide a minimal test case that shows the behavior? > >> Thanks. > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Gerry Steele <gerry.ste...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Thanks Peter. I can't try this out till I get home but it is looking > >> > like > >> > hwm overflows. > >> > > >> > If you run the utilities you notice the drops start happening after > >> > precisely 1000 events in the first instance (which Is the default > hwm). > >> > > >> > There was another largely ignored thread about this recently > mentioning > >> > the > >> > same problem. > >> > > >> > I also tried setting the hwm values to a number greater than the > number > >> > of > >> > events and it seemed to have no effect either. > >> > > >> > g > >> > > >> > On 16 Jun 2014 09:32, "Pieter Hintjens" <p...@imatix.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Gerry Steele < > gerry.ste...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Big chunks of messages go missing mid flow and then pick up again. > >> >> > There > >> >> > is > >> >> > no literature that indicates that is expected behaviour. > >> >> > >> >> Right. The two plausible causes for this are (a) HWM overflows, and > >> >> (b) temporary network disconnects. You have excluded (a), though to > be > >> >> paranoid I'd probably add some temporary logging to libzmq's pub > >> >> socket to shout out if/when it does hit the HWM. To detect (b) you > >> >> could use the socket monitoring. The third possibility is that > you're > >> >> doing something wrong with subscriptions... though that seems > >> >> unlikely. > >> >> > >> >> -Pieter > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > -- Gerry Steele
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
