By debug/checked build, I meant build-time option. I'll admit though it is a somewhat academic argument on my part. For aziomq (https://github.com/aziomq/aziomq4-x) I've gone the route of making options type safe, so the asserts would act as a back stop on me screwing up the type parameters when I declared my option types.
See - https://github.com/aziomq/aziomq4-x/blob/master/src/aziomq/option.hpp On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the actual evidence (I've seen two very expensive debug > stories caused by this same behavior in the last few weeks) shows that > returning an error in such a case is meaningless, and that a library > asserting when passed bad arguments is measurably more robust, not > less robust. I'm 100% sure of this. It's how CZMQ has worked since the > start, including in the socket option classes, and no-one has ever > flagged that as problematic. The only plausible use case is for tests, > which is circular. > > However, changing existing behavior isn't allowed by our C4 > development contract, so I was thinking of making this optional via a > build-time option in libzmq. > > -Pieter > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Thomas Rodgers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > If so, debug/checked builds only please. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Indeed... I've had this hit more than once, a zmq_setsockopt that > >> caused an error that wasn't being handled, with weird and expensive > >> results down the line. > >> > >> Kind of makes you appreciate assertions more. CZMQ does this -- if a > >> setsockopt fails for any reason except ETERM, it asserts. I might > >> propose such a patch to libzmq. > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Gerry Steele <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Thanks, there was also an error in my error handling thus why it was > >> > never > >> > flagged. I imagine its the same in my app code. uint64_t came from the > >> > cli > >> > argument handling lib thus why it was used over int. A lesson learned > >> > there. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 16 June 2014 19:13, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> And indeed, this code prints "-1" as the return code: > >> >> > >> >> void *context = zmq_ctx_new (); > >> >> void *publisher = zmq_socket (context, ZMQ_PUB); > >> >> uint64_t rhwm = 0; > >> >> int rc = zmq_setsockopt (publisher, ZMQ_SNDHWM, &rhwm, sizeof > >> >> (rhwm)); > >> >> printf ("RC=%d\n", rc); > >> >> > >> >> -Pieter > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > Hmm, it does check the size of the passed argument, and if that's > >> >> > wrong, returns an error (which you do check for). > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Gerry Steele > >> >> > <[email protected]> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > >> >> >>> <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> 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" <[email protected]> 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 > >> >> >>> >> <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >> 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" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Gerry Steele > >> >> >>> >> >> <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >> >> 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 > >> >> >>> >> >> [email protected] > >> >> >>> >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list > >> >> >>> >> > [email protected] > >> >> >>> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> >> zeromq-dev mailing list > >> >> >>> >> [email protected] > >> >> >>> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list > >> >> >>> > [email protected] > >> >> >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> zeromq-dev mailing list > >> >> >>> [email protected] > >> >> >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Gerry Steele > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list > >> >> >> [email protected] > >> >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Gerry Steele > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > zeromq-dev mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> zeromq-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
