[nanomsg] Re: Name service experiments
- From: Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:20:25 -0700
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:42:33 PM Paul Colomiets wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Just a couple of comments.
>
<snip>
> > 3. The priorities stuff is complex to setup. Note there are only three
> >
> >> low priority connections on the scheme that make whole cluster to be
> >> switched when no workers available. Note also that the only priorities
> >> do prevent messages being bounced in the cluster forever (in the case
> >> there are at least single worker). All in all there are many tiny things
> >> that is complex to setup unless there are appropriate tools.
> >
> > So what exactly do you feel is complex about prioritised connections? Loop
> > avoidance?
>
> Probably it's gut feeling. I would say I've failed to do low priority
> connections in that topology, unless I see them on the graph. But drawing a
> graph for 1000 nodes (each have tens of processes), is not going to work
> either.
Well, what about annotating some points on the graph to be _roles_ rather than
individual nodes? With REQ/REP for instance, due to its stateless nature, the
'endpoints' could describe a _class_ of nodes rather than individuals?
So for instance, you could have A(REQ) -> B(device) -> C(REP), but A and C are
annotated as roles. Then _any_ node can join as 'A' or 'C', get the
appropriate configuration for that _role_, and life goes on.
Other related posts:
