[zeromq-dev] QoS support

Steven McCoy steven.mccoy at miru.hk
Thu Nov 12 08:02:12 CET 2009


2009/11/12 Erich Heine <sophacles at gmail.com>

> See answers inline below, but at a general level, why are you so opposed to
> the idea of endpoints participating in QoS?


I like the idea, but unfortunately QoS is a catchall term that really has no
meaning without pinpointing the precise area of quality desired.


>
>
>> Next layer is the OS kernel, can it accept all the incoming packets
>> without drops.  Evidence has shown that best effort is generally preferable
>> to a prioritised queuing scheme.
>>
>> I can accept this may be the case, however I'd like to know link speed,
> what is meant by accept (how far up the stack they are processed), and what
> preferrable means. Also, in another place in the thread you mention that
> prio queues can add latency over best effort. is this added latency noticed
> in the high prio packets, or do they get processed faster than best effort,
> while the other, low prio packets suffer disproportionately? If the latter,
> it can be a perfectly acceptable outcome.
>

So much so that Linus & Alan removed any attempts at it from Linux, so
except for using something like QNX you have limited platform support for
this scenario.


>
> So your solution to prevent priority queueing in the network stack is to
> implement priority queueing in the app?  Doesn't this just beg for many poor
> implementations?
>

This is how many large vendors currently implement it, either in the app or
in a broker.   I surmise the logic being that everything underneath the
application layer is sufficiently fast to not require such support, at
millions of messages per second whether you are one or twenty packets behind
is not going to be too noticeable for many.

Having priority support implies queuing which implies additional latency
issues and for which produces a large scope of trade offs which may be
dependent on the application domain.

The main issue seems to be whether this is really a requirement of the
transport and not simply the API feeding from the incoming data streams to
the application workers.  Then continues questions about the queue, how
large can the queue grow, is it persistent, is it mapped to disk?

If you look at the system as a whole you have a few choices, you can say
sensor data has absolute #1 priority and any other traffic, i.e. the video
streams should even halt network usage until the sensor broadcast is
complete - a concept of restricted the flow of information at the source.
 Conversely you can restrict the flow of information at the receiver and say
everything is going to be sent on the network and all receivers must cope
with it - q/a and development of such receivers designed to support worst
case scenario.

-- 
Steve-o
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20091112/b108ce37/attachment.html>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list