[zeromq-dev] help with feng shui

Matt Weinstein matt_weinstein at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 27 15:01:57 CEST 2010


You're trying to get state control messages to flow through the  
system, this method is a hybrid "in band" and "out of band" system.

You probably should choose one or the other.

OOB - You mirror the topology with a group of PUB/SUB sockets, top to  
IB -  you put an input at the top of the ventilators and send inband  
messages downstream.  In this case it might be useful to have  
signaling points (devices) that let local components know what's going  
on without the stream of NOPs.

I don't think both IB and OOB are necessary, and it will be easier to  
build a correct solution if you choose just one.

In both cases UUIDs would be good to ensure that all nodes have been  
accounted for.  Counting is not particularly safe in a distributed  


On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Andrew Hume wrote:

> i need some advice. i do not yet grok the feng shui of zeromq,
> and thus seek advice from those who do.
> i have a fairly normal setup similiar to the parallel pipeline  
> example in teh guide.
> except that i have a handful of ventilators, and a handful of sinks.
> so far, so good. we just use the PUSH/PULL pattern.
> here is where it gets harder. i need to be able to essentially pause
> the ventilators, adjust the number of workers and sinks, and then
> unpause the ventilators WITHOUT losing any packets.
> the best (!?) solution i have so far is
> a) add a PUSH/PULL feedback socket (with all sinks and workers PUSH,
> and the master is a PULL)
> b) add a PUB/SUB command socket (with all ventilators, sinks and  
> workers SUB,
> and the master PUB)
> c) we send an "IDLE" command to the ventilators; they pause their  
> normal work
> and start sending NO-OP work items
> d) as each worker starts getting NO-OPs, they push a "LAZY" message  
> to the master.
> they orward the NO-OP to the sinks.
> e) when the master sees k LAZY messages (where k is the existing  
> number of workers),
> it rearranges teh workers (killing some or starting new ones). new  
> workers send NO-OPs.
> f) when each sink starts getting NO-OPs, it sends a "LAZY" message  
> to the master.
> g) when the master has done e), and seen NO-OPs from each of the j  
> sinks, it
> rearranges the sinks. when each new sink starts getting NO-OPs, it  
> send s a LAZY to teh master.
> h) when the master receives m "LAZY"s (where m is the number of new  
> sinks), it send an "GO"
> command to teh ventilators, who then stop sending NO-OPs and start  
> sending real work.
> -------------------------------------
> pros: i believe this scheme will work. and the additional cost of  
> two sockets is modest.
> cons: it is tedious to send NO-OPs, but i don't know how else to  
> flush teh buffers
> and synchronise everyone. it does involve knowing how many things  
> there are,
> but that is part of an external configuration in any case.
> is this the (or a) right way to do this? is there a better way?
> 	andrew
> ------------------
> Andrew Hume  (best -> Telework) +1 732-886-1886
> andrew at research.att.com  (Work) +1 973-360-8651
> AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20100827/d356d9fa/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list