5 ms·

Just recently I have found out that nanomsg is the successor of ZeroMQ. Does anyone have an opinion about this new lib? I am curious how mature and stable it's.

aidenn0 11y ago
There's nothing as comprehensive as the ZMQ guide for documentation, but here[1] is a good place to get started. It seems fairly stable API wise at this point. I haven't used it much, since there's no way to switch from ZMQ without losing wire-protocol compatibility, and I haven't started any new projects that need IPC recently. 1: http://tim.dysinger.net/posts/2013-09-16-getting-started-with-nanomsg.html http://tim.dysinger.net/posts/2013-09-16-getting-started-wit...
- Cidan 11y ago
  I built our entire monitoring infrastructure on top of nanomsg and nodejs; previously I used zmq. Over the last 3 months, I've had absolutely no issues with a bit over 200 servers communicating with each other. Pretty cool stuff.
  - stevekemp 11y ago
    I used nanomsg to have 20+ servers listening to queue from a single master. I found that over time the memory consumption would rise horridly and I had to stop using it. I've just had another sanity-check of my code and don't spot an obvious leak, but I'm willing to believe it is there: https://github.com/skx/nanoexec https://github.com/skx/nanoexec Otherwise though using nanomsg was a pleasure, and I have it in use elsewhere without problems.
bmaeser 11y ago
its actually not a successor, but a fork by one of zmq's core devs, Martin Sustrik. there is a writeup in the docs how nanomsg differ from zmq: http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html
PieterH 11y ago
Nano is excellent in many ways, though it's not a successor, that's just bombast from its author. ZeroMQ is far more than a library. It is a large community and hundreds of projects, e.g. independent ZeroMQ versions in Java, .Net, C++, Erlang, C. Nano is one library and bindings. Take a look at the git repositories and the email list and you really see the significant differences. These aren't technical. They're why the ZeroMQ community merges pull requests rapidly, and products tend to be stable on master, while Nano has pull requests hanging for months, and isn't stable. Nano should have been compatible with ZeroMQ, then it would have been a successor and the protocols could have evolved over time to become what Sustrik wanted. Instead it tried to define itself by one-upping ZeroMQ, missing many opportunities. ZeroMQ has so much stuff built on top. Nano? So little. This is not accidental or random. The ZeroMQ community is welcoming to people, and every effort is welcome, unless it's really disruptive. Nano is just a the wrong side of hostile, arrogant, and insecure and it shows in the arguments on the mailing list (which we just don't get on zeromq-dev). Edit: by "not stable", I refer to its "0.5 beta" status, not any technical instability. The point being there is no guarantee of forward compatibility.
- cbetz 11y ago
  Small correction: There is a pure Go implementation of nanomsg (https://github.com/gdamore/mangos https://github.com/gdamore/mangos).
  - PieterH 11y ago
    Ah, indeed, thank you. This is encouraging and I'd like to see more of this. We need spaces for experimentation and competition, and the more libraries attack this "NoBroker" space, the better. I do wish Nano would stand on its own merits rather than the cheap "why we're better than ZeroMQ" marketing. Also I'm somewhat disappointed that Sustrik isn't using Nano in his own new projects (like libmill). That's not a great vote of confidence.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > I do wish Nano would stand on its own merits rather than the cheap "why we're better than ZeroMQ" marketing. IIRC, 0MQ launched with quite a lot of "why we're better than AMQP" marketing.

aidenn0 11y ago

There's nothing as comprehensive as the ZMQ guide for documentation, but here[1] is a good place to get started. It seems fairly stable API wise at this point. I haven't used it much, since there's no way to switch from ZMQ without losing wire-protocol compatibility, and I haven't started any new projects that need IPC recently. 1: http://tim.dysinger.net/posts/2013-09-16-getting-started-with-nanomsg.html http://tim.dysinger.net/posts/2013-09-16-getting-started-wit...

Cidan 11y ago
I built our entire monitoring infrastructure on top of nanomsg and nodejs; previously I used zmq. Over the last 3 months, I've had absolutely no issues with a bit over 200 servers communicating with each other. Pretty cool stuff.
- stevekemp 11y ago
  I used nanomsg to have 20+ servers listening to queue from a single master. I found that over time the memory consumption would rise horridly and I had to stop using it. I've just had another sanity-check of my code and don't spot an obvious leak, but I'm willing to believe it is there: https://github.com/skx/nanoexec https://github.com/skx/nanoexec Otherwise though using nanomsg was a pleasure, and I have it in use elsewhere without problems.

bmaeser 11y ago

its actually not a successor, but a fork by one of zmq's core devs, Martin Sustrik. there is a writeup in the docs how nanomsg differ from zmq: http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html

PieterH 11y ago

Nano is excellent in many ways, though it's not a successor, that's just bombast from its author. ZeroMQ is far more than a library. It is a large community and hundreds of projects, e.g. independent ZeroMQ versions in Java, .Net, C++, Erlang, C. Nano is one library and bindings. Take a look at the git repositories and the email list and you really see the significant differences. These aren't technical. They're why the ZeroMQ community merges pull requests rapidly, and products tend to be stable on master, while Nano has pull requests hanging for months, and isn't stable. Nano should have been compatible with ZeroMQ, then it would have been a successor and the protocols could have evolved over time to become what Sustrik wanted. Instead it tried to define itself by one-upping ZeroMQ, missing many opportunities. ZeroMQ has so much stuff built on top. Nano? So little. This is not accidental or random. The ZeroMQ community is welcoming to people, and every effort is welcome, unless it's really disruptive. Nano is just a the wrong side of hostile, arrogant, and insecure and it shows in the arguments on the mailing list (which we just don't get on zeromq-dev). Edit: by "not stable", I refer to its "0.5 beta" status, not any technical instability. The point being there is no guarantee of forward compatibility.

cbetz 11y ago
Small correction: There is a pure Go implementation of nanomsg (https://github.com/gdamore/mangos https://github.com/gdamore/mangos).
- PieterH 11y ago
  Ah, indeed, thank you. This is encouraging and I'd like to see more of this. We need spaces for experimentation and competition, and the more libraries attack this "NoBroker" space, the better. I do wish Nano would stand on its own merits rather than the cheap "why we're better than ZeroMQ" marketing. Also I'm somewhat disappointed that Sustrik isn't using Nano in his own new projects (like libmill). That's not a great vote of confidence.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I do wish Nano would stand on its own merits rather than the cheap "why we're better than ZeroMQ" marketing. IIRC, 0MQ launched with quite a lot of "why we're better than AMQP" marketing.