[zeromq-dev] Should zeromq handle OOM? (Re: [PATCH] Fixed OOM handling while writing to a pipe)

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Sat May 21 01:31:57 CEST 2011

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Paul Colomiets <paul at colomiets.name> wrote:

> The problem with asserting on OOM is that you excluding zeromq for using in
> whole class of applications. All today's fast performance databases use
> writeback cache. And it's totally bad for them to not to be able to flush
> the dirty cache (well, its technically possible by installing handler on
> SIGABRT, but is much less reliable). You exclude all kind of databases:
> persistent queues, caches, whatever. Probably this is not the only kind of
> applications is excluded, just something came to my mind.

Well, don't take a -1 as a formal "no", it's an opinion based on
experience of what works so far. Everyone here is, IMO, open to new

I think what you need to do is make a test bench that proves the case.
Perhaps an EC2 instance with low virtual memory, or somesuch.
Something people can play with.

Then we can see before/after behaviour and it stops being a matter of
philosophy, and becomes science.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list