[zeromq-dev] a hot discussion on ZMQ vs YAMI; evaluation of middleware we did at CERN at the end of 2011

[Pieter Hintjens]

Hi Andrzej,

OK, good. I think we'll want to reboot the libzmq internals at some
point, perhaps based on nanomsg, and that would be a moment to put in
better memory management. Or perhaps based on the disruptor pattern.
To be seen, it doesn't really matter once we have the protocol worked
out.

There are a few things I'd still like to fix in the protocol (like
heartbeating), but it needs more pliable stacks. We're seeing quite a
few ZMTP stacks springing up, e.g.
https://github.com/spotify/netty-zmtp.

This is part of the motivation for the June meeting in Brussels: to
discuss the technical future of libzmq and where to focus.

-Pieter



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Andrzej Dworak <Andrzej.Dworak at cern.ch> wrote:
> Hi Pieter,
>
> I really like your approach. For us, with a few thousand servers distributed over a few thousand computers, the compatibility between new versions of the protocol is crucial. For instance, now, we need to provide an interoperability layer to connect new (ZMQ) and old (CORBA) services/servers/clients. That's a huge effort. I can't really imagine doing it again :) So, without protocol versioning we would be simply stuck with a certain version of ZMQ.
>
> I also like all the new upgrades, especially the additions concerning the security. We run on a private network and for internal purpose we have our own security layer on-top... But it's impossible to address efficiently some of the problems that the new protocol should help to solve.
>
> As for the memory allocation, for us embedded systems are as important as hard RT... and then, the only solution is to set constraints and preallocated on start-up. But this calls for another big discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrzej
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org [zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org] on behalf of Pieter Hintjens [ph at imatix.com]
> Sent: 02 May 2013 15:56
> To: ZeroMQ development list
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] a hot discussion on ZMQ vs YAMI; evaluation of middleware we did at CERN at the end of 2011
>
> Hi Andrzej,
>
> Thanks for this PDF, it's really interesting.
>
> I'm curious to know your opinion of the work we're doing on the wire
> protocol (ZMTP), which is now in v3.0 in draft stage
> (rfc.zeromq.org/spec:23). The goal is to ensure that different
> implementations can talk together safely, over a long timeframe.
>
> -Pieter
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andrzej Dworak <Andrzej.Dworak at cern.ch> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> First of all I should have sent that paper more than a year ago, sorry. Hopefully it will be still of some value... In fact it was only a very interesting discussion at reddit that reminded me to send the small review we did. Again, sorry for being late on that.
>>
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1d0pwj/yami4_vs_zeromq/
>>
>> I hope 150k is not an issue for any box...
>> To sum up the paper: we have evaluated a number of middlewares in the context of our requirements. A short description of each product is provided and how it would fit into our system. The result - ZMQ fits perfectly in our environment, better than anything else. For details on the requirements* and why ZMQ is better for us than anything else with have tried see the paper.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andrzej
>>
>> *I guess our reqs are quite common to any big scalable distributed system that needs to survive the next +10 years.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev