[zeromq-dev] max PUB/SUB topics

[Osiris Pedroso]

>* sort of like how I got into the habit of putting [IMPLICITNONE] at the
start of every FORTRAN module

That bring memories... :-)

On Wed, May 15, 2019, 19:07 Brian T. Carcich <briantcarcich at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:40 AM Bekritsky, Benjamin via zeromq-dev <
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org> wrote:
>
>> Turns out Justin’s original suggestion to “to set SNDHWM=0 on the SUB
>> socket and RCVHWM=0 on the PUB socket” resolves the issue. In particular on
>> the SUB socket.  I had mistakenly set the *RCV*HWM for the SUB socket.
>>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:23 AM James Harvey <jamesdillonharvey at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
> 1. subscriptions make it through to the publisher, this is where the
>> filtering happens (apart from pgm/mcast transport)
>>
>
>
> Thank you/aHA/Eureka/the light just came on:  each
> setsockopt/ZMQ_SUBSCRIBE by the subscriber ***S*e*ND*s** a message **to**
> the publisher, which is why the subscriber needs to set *SND*HWM to 0 (I
> suppose anything over 65535 woould work for 16-bit topics).
>
> I updated my example code
> <https://github.com/drbitboy/test_0mq_subscribe_limit>, and it now works
> as expected.
>
>
>
> Philosophical sidebar:  why does it seem that we always end up in the
> internals?  Stated another way, why doesn't the library just work all the
> time for every case  (Although if it did, wouldn't many of us be out of a
> job;-)?
>
> #1 I am not saying anything against 0MQ; on the contrary, I think it's
> amazing.
>
> I guess the answer is the Pareto Principle (80/20), i.e. that any single
> library cannot handle all edge cases with its default settings, so we spend
> 80% of our time, digging into the internals, for the 20% that are edge
> cases.
>
> For example, the default HWMs of 1000 are not unreasonable; they work fine
> until a case like Benjy's comes along,  Then, to solve his problem we
> needed those (Justin, James) who understand the internals to provide the
> answer.  Maybe the default HWM should be zero (i.e. infinite; damn the
> torpedoes, full speed ahead!;-), and let developers who need finite HWMs
> set them up themselves*. Then we'd be fine (until the next edge case;-).
>
> * sort of like how I got into the habit of putting [IMPLICITNONE] at the
> start of every FORTRAN module.
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20190515/9767fe1e/attachment.htm>