[nanomsg] Re: Priotitised Load Balancing with nanomsg
- From: Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:59:46 +0200
Hi Martin,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/01/13 21:11, Paul Colomiets wrote:
>
>> However, do you think receive priorities are useful at all? It seems
>> that if your consumer is fast enough to consume all the messages, then
>> priorities make almost no difference. If your consumer is not fast
>> enough to consume both high- and low-priority messages you just have a
>> lot of stale data in the low-priority pipe. (Note most of the time
>> requests will be timeouted, because that's the only way to deliver
>> message reliably).
>>
>> Do you have any use cases in mind?
>
>
> Not really. It was just that RCVPRIO comes for free (both load-balancer and
> fair-queuer are implemented using the sane nn_priolist class). Actually
> dropping the feature would mean more code -- I would have to write a
> non-prioritised pipe list.
>
> Do you believe we should remove the feature?
>
Yes, currently I think we should remove the feature. However, I don't
think more code is needed, just remove the option, and leave single
priority internally. Eventually someone may find a good use case for
it.
--
Paul
Other related posts:
