[zeromq-dev] push to multiple pull sockets

Andrew Hume andrew at research.att.com
Mon Jan 31 09:05:34 CET 2011


okay. that is exactly pub/sub.
so now the problem is exactly what properties are you trying to maintain
as part of your "synchronizing"?

On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:38 AM, Nathan Marz wrote:

> I think I was unclear. I don't want the load balancing behavior and instead want the pusher to send the message to all the pullers it's connected to.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Andrew Hume <andrew at research.att.com> wrote:
> it does exactly as you wish.
> push pull supports multiple pushers and multiple pullers.
> it does fair cheduling amongst the pushers
> and load balancing across the pullers.
> i use this paradigm all the time.
> 
> 
> although, i think push/pull doesn't work so well with multicast transport.
> 
> On Jan 30, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Nathan Marz wrote:
> 
>> I asked about this on irc, but I'd like to get more information on this. In the system I'm building, I need to push messages to multiple workers. The sender knows who all the receivers are, but push sockets only support load-balancing and not pushing to all the receivers. 
>> 
>> I was told I should use pub/sub for this functionality, but this seems needlessly complex if I want to ensure no messages lost as it requires a synchronization step. The system I'm building has fault-tolerance built at the software layer, so publishers/receivers can change over time as machines go down and tasks get reassigned. Synchronizing new publishers and receivers mid-processing is not desirable.
>> 
>> Are there technical reasons why multicasting from a push socket to multiple pull sockets is not desirable? Alternatively, are there any major drawbacks to having the sender open up a separate push socket to each receiver?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Nathan
>> 
>> -- 
>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>> http://nathanmarz.com
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> 
> ------------------
> Andrew Hume  (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845
> andrew at research.att.com  (Work) +1 none currently
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> http://nathanmarz.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

------------------
Andrew Hume  (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845
andrew at research.att.com  (Work) +1 none currently
AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20110131/03b873db/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list