[zeromq-dev] adaptable net
matjaz.ostroversnik at gmail.com
Sun Apr 10 19:42:56 CEST 2016
It was superb concert and now back to business. :-)
On 9.4.2016 12:33, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> Too many questions at once :)
Said by a person who writes thick books in its own free time. :-)
> - Async request-reply already works, using service requests, and
> mailboxes for replies.
That's nice to hear. I noticed various interfaces, but I concentrated on
service part only.
I'll check that.
> - For reliability, there is already a "tracker" field in messages. My
> intention was/is that recipients can send CONFIRMs back for specific
> messages. These flow asynchronously, and allow senders to retry as
> needed. See mlm_proto.xml.
I noticed that, but obviously I was not reading right comments. ;-) It
seems to be the right stuff. :-)
What were conceptual reasons to make tracker as string? What is wrong
with some integer value (e.g. uint32/64)?
This way we skip string space allocate/deallocate pairs on each stage of
transfer. It is anyhow internal structure.
Any conceptual objection to extend the confirm message with a (possibly
zero length) blob?
<message name = "CONFIRM">
Client confirms reception of a message, or server forwards this
confirmation to original sender. If status code is 300 or
indicates that the message could not be delivered.
<field name = "tracker" type = "string">Message tracker</field>
<field name = "status" type = "status" />
<field name = "payload" type = "chunk" />
> - If you need additional reliability layers I'd suggest writing this
> in an application on top of Malamute rather than in the
> protocol/server/client itself. Since you can embed mlm_server as a
> thread, and talk to the broker over inproc:, you can embed routing
> applications in the same process.
That is possible, but what about simple zsock_attach with several
connect addresses? Just simple change from connect to attach. ;-)
Each new thread is potential can of worms. I prefer not to use them
unless absolutely necessary. ;-)
Is there a way to influence the selection of next server/router on
DEALER? As far I know it is round robin fashion only.
Perhaps some callback function on zsock_t which returns id of the next
socket to use?
> - As always, try to make small, incremental changes that can be proven
> independently. Be wary, even paranoid, of your own ability to make
> large-scale architectures. If you want to make large experiments, you
> can certainly do this, yet it will always be hard to bring such
> changes back into master.
Of course. :-)
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Matjaž Ostroveršnik
> <matjaz.ostroversnik at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> In last days I am studying the mlm server architecture. Nice and clean
>> design. Congrats to the architects.
>> My objective is set to prepare adaptable net of nodes with client and worker
>> functionality (i.e. service pattern in mlm semantics) that
>> can communicate among themselves. It is always client (consumer of the
>> results of the service)-worker(provider of the service) communication, but
>> nodes have both client and worker functionality.
>> There is/are one or more brokers between clients and workers. Communication
>> goes client-broker-worker-broker-client. Brokers should be as simple as
>> A. Broker:
>> There are two or more brokers in the net.
>> Brokers hold no vital information. If one broker goes down (regular /
>> irregular shutdown) net must readapt. No payload is lost.
>> broker is go between clients and workers from the security reasons (clients
>> must not have direct access to the workers and vice versa)
>> brokers allow only connection of registered clients/workers
>> brokers distribute work between workers offering the same service (load
>> e.g. round-robin
>> provide alternative paths between clients and workers. (resistance to
>> C1->B1->W1->B1-C1 if there are several brokers the same pair C1/W1 can
>> communicate via different brokers, assuming that all workers and all
>> clients are connected to all brokers.
>> source of information about other brokers in the net
>> i.e. client/worker connects to one predefined broker, periodically it
>> distributes the list of other brokers to its workers/clients
>> brokers have periodically "quorum" when they exchange information about them
>> selves (i.e. list of all active brokers)
>> initially each node is configured with at least one broker (others are
>> provided dynamically)
>> initially each broker is configured with at least one peer broker (is there
>> mechanism to make broadcast on WAN?)
>> B. Clients:
>> connected to one broker initially, gradually they "see" whole set of brokers
>> if one broker fails, client uses different path (via retransmitting the
>> clients distribute work between brokers
>> C. Workers:
>> - each worker provides one service type
>> - there can be several workers offering the same service
>> D. Messages:
>> payload is opaque (size cca 4KB)
>> meta-data : sender, receiver, unique-msg id, possible duplicate, original
>> message id (for replys), retry cnt
>> if they are expired and until there is an option for retry client retries
>> E. Message exchange:
>> it is always initiated by the client part of the node and goes to the
>> service worker, which replys
>> if message is not return in predefined period of time (msg exchange timeout)
>> it is retried (predefined number of retries)
>> client can select the broker to send the message through, but worker always
>> returns message via arriving path(broker)
>> message exchange C-B-W-B-C is fast (sub seccond)
>> Current mlm server is by my opinion platform for this task. Am I too
>> Existing functionality:
>> - A.1-2
>> - A.4 (?) believe so
>> - C.*
>> - E.1 (how to do reply?)
>> - E.3-4
>> Already added functionality:
>> - A.3.1 (curve)
>> - D.1 (blobs)
>> TODO functionality:
>> - A.5
>> - A.6 (the toughest stuff)
>> - B.1-3
>> - D.2-3
>> - E.2
>> Async request-reply pattern. Is it already supported? Code talks about
>> replys, but I am unsure. Hints?
>> D.2-3, E.2: Is current message (mlm_msg_t) suitable for expansion (e.g.
>> unique-id, original-unique-id, retry-cnt)?Or should I do it in some other
>> A.5: clients / workers should connect to different brokers (e.g. array of
>> mlm_client actors )
>> A.6: Currently I do not have solution for A.6. Is zgossip the right
>> B.1-3 - Strictly related to A.6 solution
>> What is your opinion on this?
>> Would you do something in a different way?
>> How you would tackle A.6?
>> Thanks in advance
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the zeromq-dev