[zeromq-dev] [PATCH] Re: ZMQ 2.1.0 and OpenPGM Memory Usage

Steven McCoy steven.mccoy at miru.hk
Wed Dec 8 02:20:54 CET 2010

On 7 December 2010 22:53, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:

> On 12/07/2010 03:37 PM, Bob Beaty wrote:
>> Martin, Steven, et. al.,
>>   I've got a functioning patch for the setting of the Recovery Interval as
>>  milliseconds as opposed to seconds. It includes the changes to the docs,
>> and while it might not be up to professional writing levels, it's accurate
>> and complete so people can see what the new option is supposed to do.
>>   Of course, I've tried to follow all the guidelines in the Contributing
>> to 0MQ page, but it's quite possible I missed a few. Sorry for that.
>>   Along those same lines, I'm including the patch inline as that was the
>> requested method:
> Steven, I wonder if it makes sense to ever set RECOVERY_IVL to 0. Maybe
> when unreliable multicast is desired?

Probably be unreliable unordered multicast, on the send side it would be
unreliable, on the receive side the window is also used to re-order incoming
packets, which is pretty mandatory on switched networks.

> If so, the default for the new option should be -1 rather than 0.
It would be more obvious that it is not a valid time period.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20101208/eab03cea/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list