[zeromq-dev] Tie Breaker

Justin Karneges justin at affinix.com
Wed Jul 29 02:12:42 CEST 2015

Sure thing. And yeah, if you're always polling forever for writability
before writing, then you effectively have a backpressure strategy.

Note that if you begin polling for read and write at the same time, then
you open the door to potentially processing new data while you've still
got pending outbound data to write, and then you will face those three
choices I mentioned.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015, at 05:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller wrote:
> Thank you, by the way.
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
> <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's no need to take any of those options because in my case,
>> because the producer polls every time before sending.
>> I think I realize with your first sentence what I missed when I
>> wasn't vocalizing my issue. I think I now know that it's not because
>> the other clients aren't concurrent that there is an issue, it's the
>> lack of isolating the location in code for polling into doing both
>> read and write polling in one call. If it were one call, then the
>> send lockup could never happen, but right now, it occurs in sequence,
>> where if you return from polling for read, you read, do work, and
>> then poll before sending that back out. In any case, I think I am
>> highly confident I have the correct implementation path now.
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Justin Karneges
>> <justin at affinix.com> wrote:
>>> __
>>> You can poll for read and write at the same time, so there shouldn't
>>> be any issue with both peers sending simultaneously and then failing
>>> to read.
>>> Note that if you can't write, then you need to think about how to
>>> manage your outbound messages. The three basic choices you have are:
>>> 1) Backpressure (while waiting to write, stop doing anything that
>>>    causes new messages to be produced)
>>> 2) Drop messages
>>> 3) Queue every message, indefinitely (caution to the wind!)
>>> The third option is almost never what you want. It sucks having to
>>> choose between the first and second options but that's reality. Once
>>> you've decided on your strategy then you'll know what code to write.
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015, at 04:28 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller wrote:
>>>> I can't use ZeroMQ for this, because I know if I could this
>>>> wouldn't be a problem. But since there are so many systems
>>>> engineers on the channel and fundamentally it's what ZMQ aims to
>>>> solve, I think it's the appropriate place.
>>>> For a scalability benchmark meant to emulate our real world
>>>> scenario, I have a cycle created between a producer and a consumer,
>>>> where the producer spams a fifo object that the consumer is
>>>> listening on. The consumer does some validation work on the data
>>>> that it was hit with and sends it back out over a different fifo
>>>> object that the producer is concurrently listening to (rather it's
>>>> a chain of four processes linked in this way).
>>>> <-   process_echo <- Producer
>>>> consumer                ->    process_echo ->
>>>> This works fine from the perspective of the producer, because
>>>> listening and writing requires no coordination between threads. But
>>>> the producer and echoing processes were written singled threaded,
>>>> and from the perspective that it would poll only for input and not
>>>> for when it writes.
>>>> Well, as my testing went along I discovered that I had to make both
>>>> the producer and consumer poll on output so that no data could be
>>>> lost when the sender goes to send and the fifo isn't being read
>>>> from fast enough. (possibly that's wrong)
>>>> But using poll on the sender has caused hangups on the system as a
>>>> whole. Poll returns for readers, I think, when someone has already
>>>> written or is writing. And for writers, when someone is blocking
>>>> (whether polling or in read) to read.
>>>> But the problem that this solves brings up a different problem: if
>>>> the single threaded programs poll to write, then the cycle could
>>>> deadlock where every side is polling to write, before even one
>>>> message makes it fully round circle.
>>>> My thought is, I could break it by making the consumer concurrent
>>>> in reading and writing, that way, lockup on send cannot happen,
>>>> because there will always be a reader to allow execution to
>>>> continue in the echo tool and consumer. But that's hard because the
>>>> code base is large.
>>>> I said all of that just to ask-does anybody have any alternative
>>>> suggestions regarding how to approach this exact problem?
>>>> All fifo objects are in non-blocking mode.
>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20150728/4c78edf3/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list