[zeromq-dev] Notify send()er that they've hit the high water mark

[Edwin Amsler]

No need. I don't even care about subscribers. It's all about feeding the 
sending state machine efficiently.

On 09/07/2012 3:41 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote:
> Have you looked at the suicidal snail pattern?
>
> http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#Slow-Subscriber-Detection-Suicidal-Snail-Pattern
>
> -Michel
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Edwin Amsler
> <edwinamsler at thinkboxsoftware.com>  wrote:
>> So here I am, publishing messages through ZeroMQ's send() function at about
>> 300MB/s, and my network's set to only send at 10MB/s.
>>
>> This is kind of a big problem because, while I don't care if the clients
>> loose data on their end, the server is either using its memory until it
>> crashes, or I'm setting its high water mark and loosing about 29 of every
>> thirty messages I produce because I don't know that ZeroMQ can't keep up.
>>
>> Ideally, when a HWM condition happened, send() would return false, then I'd
>> test EAGAIN so I could decide for myself whether I should drop the message,
>> or retry later. With that kind of functionality, I could throttle back my
>> producer algorithm so that I exactly meet the demand of ZeroMQ instead of
>> overwhelming/starving it out.
>>
>> I'm willing to do the work if this sort of addition makes sense to the rest
>> of the project. I'd rather contribute here instead of forking it off in some
>> forgotten repository.
>>
>> Can/should this be done? Is there someone out there willing to mentor me?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Edwin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev