I understand an XPUB socket can drop messages that are sent on it until
it sees some forwarded subscriptions that match. Makes sense.
However, my XPUB process has restarted, and subscribers on other machines
are up and running for a while, but for a period of minutes, all messages I send
on the XPUB socket are silently dropped, until the XPUB socket receives
the forwarded client subscriptions.
I'm using a XPUB/XSUB proxy as an intermediate here. Nothing fancy here.
Is there any way to trick zmq to forward subscriptions to the new XPUB socket
which has connected to the proxy in a more timely manner?
I've thought about queuing the messages on the XPUB side until the subscription
message arrives, or perhaps implementing something in the proxy server to
cache the last subscription request, and use zmq_monitor_socket() to look for
new connections and then forward the cached subscriptions, but these both
seem kind of hacky.
is it only the xpub thats restarted or do both xpub/xsub sockets restart, I am using nodejs zmq and in my experience my messages are still forwarded when my xpub/xsub proxy restarts..
Related
I'm building a distributed system and I would like asynchronous send and recv from both sides with blocking after high water mark.
PUSH/PULL sockets works great, but I wasn't able to bind a PUSH socket. Meaning I can't have a client-PUSH to server-PULL and a server-PUSH to client-PULL, if the client is behind a firewall, since the server can't connect to the client.
In the book, the following is written, but I can't find an example of it.
"REQ to DEALER: you could in theory do this, but it would break if you added a second REQ because DEALER has no way of sending a reply to the original peer. Thus the REQ socket would get confused, and/or return messages meant for another client." http://zguide.zeromq.org/php:chapter3
I only need a one-to-one connection, so this would in theory work for me.
My question is, what is the best practice to obtain asynchronous send and recv with ZeroMQ without dropping packets?
Most ZeroMQ sockets can both bind (listen on a specific port, acting as a server) and connect (acting as a client). It is usually not related to the data flow. See the guide for more info.
Try to bind on your servers PUSH socket and connect from your clients PULL socket.
I'm new to ZeroMQ and trying to figure out a design issue. My scenario is that I have one or more clients sending requests to a single server. The server will process the requests, do some stuff, and send a reply to the client. There are two conditions:
The replies must go to the clients that sent the request.
If the client disconnects, the server should queue messages for a period of time so that if the client reconnects, it can receive the messages it missed.
I am having a difficult time figuring out the simplest way to implement this.
Things I've tried:
PUB/SUB - I could tag replies with topics to ensure only the subscribers that sent their request (with their topic as their identifier) would receive the correct reply. This takes care of the routing issue, but since the publisher is unaware of the subscribers, it knows nothing about clients that disconnect.
PUSH/PULL - Seems to be able to handle the message queuing issue, but looks like it won't support my plan of having messages sent to specific clients (based on their ID, for example).
ROUTER/DEALER - Design seemed like the solution to both, but all of the examples seem pretty complex.
My thinking right now is continuing with PUB/SUB, try to implement some sort of heartbeat on the client end (allowing the server to detect the client's presence), and when the client no longer sends a heartbeat, it will stop sending messages tagged with its topic. But that seems sub-optimal and would also involve another socket.
Are there any ideas or suggestions on any other ways I might go about implementing this? Any info would be greatly appreciated. I'm working in Python but any language is fine.
To prepare the best proposition for your solution, more data about your application requirements. I have made a little research about your conditions and connnect it with my experience about ZMQ, here I present two possibilities:
1) PUSH/PULL pattern in two direction, bigger impact on scalability, but messages from server will be cached.
Server has one PULL socket to register each client and get all messages from clients. Each message should have client ID to for server knowledge where send response.
For each client - server create PUSH socket to send responses. Socket configuration was sent in register message. You can use also REQ/REP pattern for register clients (assign socket number).
Each client has own PULL socket, which configuration was sent to server in register message.
It means that server with three clients required to (example port numbers in []):
server: 1 x PULL[5555] socket, 3 x PUSH[5560,5561,5562] sockets (+ optional 1 X REQ[5556] socket for registrations, but I think it depends how you prepare client identity)
client: 1 x PUSH[5555] socket, 1 x PULL[5560|5561|5562] (one per client) (+ optional 1 X REP[5556])
You have to connect server to multiple client sockets to send responses but if client disconnects, messages will not lost. Client will get their own messages when it reconnect to their PULL socket. The disadvantage is requirements of creating few PUSH sockets on server side (number of clients).
2) PUB/SUB + PUSH/PULL or REQ/REP, static cocket configuration on server side (only 2), but server has to prepare some mechanism for retransmit or cache messages.
Server create PUB socket and PULL or REQ. Client register it identity by PULL or REQ socket. server will publish all messages to client with this identity as filter. Server use monitor() function on PUB socket to count number of connected and disconnected clients (actions: 'accept' and 'disconnect'). After 'disconnect' action server publish message to all clients to register again. For clients which not re-register, server stop publish messages.
Client create SUB socket and PUSH or REQ to register and send requests.
This solution requires maybe some cache on server side. Client could confirm each message after get it from SUB socket. It is more complicated and have to be connected with your requirement. If you just would like to know that client lost message. Client could send timestamps of last message received from server during registration. If you need guarantee that clients get all messages, you need some cache implementation. Maybe other process which subscribe all messages and delete each confirmed by client.
In this solution server with three clients required to (example port numbers in []):
server: 1 x PUB[5555] socket, 1 x REP or PULL[5560] socket + monitoring PUB socket
client: 1 x SUB[5555] socket and own identity for filter, 1 x REQ or PUSH[5560] socket
About monitoring you could read here: https://github.com/JustinTulloss/zeromq.node#monitoring (NodeJS implementation, but Python will be similar)
I think about other patterns, but I am not sure that ROUTER/DEALER or REQ/REP will cover your requirements. You should read more about patterns, because each of it is better for some solutions. Look here:
official ZMQ guide (a lot of examples and pictures)
easy ROUTER/DEALER example: http://blog.scottlogic.com/2015/03/20/ZeroMQ-Quick-Intro.html
I have a client/server setup in which clients send a single request message to the server and gets a bunch of data messages back.
The server is implemented using a ROUTER socket and the clients using a DEALER. The communication is asynchronous.
The clients are typically iPads/iPhones and they connect over wifi so the connection is not 100% reliable.
The issue I’m concern about is if the client connects to the server and sends a request for data but before the response messages are delivered back the communication goes down (e.g. out of wifi coverage).
In this case the messages will be queued up on the server side waiting for the client to reconnect. That is fine for a short time but eventually I would like to drop the messages and the connection to release resources.
By checking activity/timeouts it would be possible in the server and the client applications to identify that the connection is gone. The client can shutdown the socket and in this way free resources but how can it be done in the server?
Per the ZMQ FAQ:
How can I flush all messages that are in the ZeroMQ socket queue?
There is no explicit command for flushing a specific message or all messages from the message queue. You may set ZMQ_LINGER to 0 and close the socket to discard any unsent messages.
Per this mailing list discussion from 2013:
There is no option to drop old messages [from an outgoing message queue].
Your best bet is to implement heartbeating and, when one client stops responding without explicitly disconnecting, restart your ROUTER socket. Messy, I know, this is really something that should have a companion option to HWM. Pieter Hintjens is clearly on board (he created ZMQ) - but that was from 2011, so it looks like nothing ever came of it.
This is a bit late but setting tcp keepalive to a reasonable value will cause dead sockets to close after the timeouts have expired.
Heartbeating is necessary for either side to determine the other side is still responding.
The only thing I'm not sure about is how to go about heartbeating many thousands of clients without spending all available cpu just on dealing with the heartbeats.
I have a single publisher application (PUB) which has N number of subscribers (SUB)
These subscribers need to be able to catch up if they are restarted, or fall down and miss messages.
We have implemented a simple event store that the publisher writes to.
We have implemented a CatchupService which can query the event store and send missed messages to the subscriber.
We have implemented in the subscriber a PUSH socket which sends a request for missed messages.
The subscriber also has a PULL socket which listens for missed messages on a seperate port.
The subscriber will:
Detect a gap
Send a request for missed messages to our CatchupService, the request also contains the address on which to send the results to.
The catchup service has a PULL socket on which it listens for requests
When the CatchupService receives a request it starts a worker thread which:
Gets the missed messages
Opens a PUSH socket connecting to the subscribers PULL socket
Sends the missed messages to the subscriber.
This seems to work quite well however we are unsure if we are using the right socket types for this sort of application. Are these correct or should be using a different pattern.
Sounds okay. Otherwise 0MQ is able to recovery from message loss when peers go offline for a short time. Take a look at the Socket Options and specifically option ZMQ_SNDHWM.
I don't know just how guaranteed the 0MQ recovery mechanisms are so maybe you're best to stay with what you've got, but it is something to be aware of.
How can a client both subscribe and listen to replies with zeromq?
That is, on the client side I'd like to run a loop which only receives messages and selectively sends requests, and on the server side I'd like to publish most of the time, but to sometimes receive requests as well.
It looks like I'll have to have two different sockets - one for each mode of communication. Is it possible to avoid that and on the server side receive "request notifications" from the socket on a zeromq callback thread while pushing messages to the socket in my own thread?
I am awfully new to ZeroMQ, so I'm not sure if what you want is considered best-practice or not. However, a solution using multiple sockets is pretty simple using zmq_poll.
The basic idea would be to have both client and server:
open a socket for pub/sub
open a socket for req/rep
multiplex sends and receives between the two sockets in a loop using zmq_poll in an infinite loop
process req/rep and pub/sub events within the loop as they occur
Using zmq_poll in this manner with multiple sockets is nice because it avoids threads altogether. The 0MQ guide has a good example here. Note that in that example, they use a timeout of -1 in zmq_poll, which causes it to block until at least one event occurs on any of the multiplexed sockets, but it's pretty common to use a timeout of x milliseconds or something if your loop needs to do some other work as well.
You can use 2 threads to handle the different sockets. The challenge is that if you need to share data between threads, you need to synchronize it in a safe way.
The alternative is to use the ZeroMQ Poller to select the sockets that have new data on them. The process would then use a single loop in the way bjlaub explained.
This could be accomplished using a variation/subset of the Majordomo Protocol. Here's the idea:
Your server will be a router socket, and your clients will be dealer sockets. Upon connecting to the server, the client needs to send some kind of subscription or "hello" message (of your design). The server receives that packet, but (being a router socket) also receives the ID of that client. When the server needs to send something to that client (through your design), it sends it to that ID. The client can send and receive at will, since it is a dealer socket.