Talk:ZeroMQ

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Pieterh (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

"Utilizing a message batching technique, ØMQ can outperform raw TCP in terms of throughput" is a polemic claim made by the ØMQ developers, but it is (deliberately) misleading. Since TCP is (for the most time) the underlying transport, ØMQ does not and cannot "outperform" TCP in any way.

What ØMQ really does is send any number of messages that are in the buffer at the time the socket becomes ready in one batch. This is basically a "opportunistic, lucky chance Nagle's algorithm" without a timeout.

A more concise wording would be: ØMQ can maintain low latency while outperforming a very naive implementation sending individual small messages over a TCP_NODELAY socket by batching several messages into a batch opportunistically. It does, on the other hand, not incur the latency of a TCP socket with Nagle's algorithm enabled, as there is no fixed timeout.

Your point is correct and must be addressed but your suggestion does not seem more concise! Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

As an aside what a great improvement 0MQ is over MQ generally! I once was given the great general advice: "MIddleware? Just say no!". 0MQ does a great job while avoiding some of the overly complex MQ implementations I have seen, where the implementation of the MQ and MQ-similar middleware often complicated rather than simplified the message queue problem being addressed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've reworded that claim to be more accurate. I'm not sure if sending messages individually is "very naive"; opportunistic batching is very hard to do right, so typical apps (and frameworks) do not do it. Which is why 0MQ seems faster than "typical TCP apps". Pieter Hintjens (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uwydoc posted this comment on 7 August 2013 (view all feedback).

more eleberated description of the common patterns, which are described in the 'Technology' section, would be helpful

I guess it should be pictures. --4th-otaku (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why is this sorting under the letter O (e.g. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Message-oriented_middleware)? I looked for it under the letter Z and in the number (zero) 0, but amazingly found it under the letter O, which, I guess at least *appears* in the word, but not in the traditional first letter position. This seems to violate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment. Thanks. RussellSenior (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, was expanded to 8 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number, and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. Consensus needs to determine this. A tag indicates concerns.

However, none is needed for article promotion.

Some links may be included in WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOTGUIDE.

• WP:ELDEAD may apply.
• In some cases ELCITE applies: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Others, listed below:
• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

The External links guideline This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please also note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Please do not add back more links without consensus. Simple solution to facilitate career maintenance tag. Move links here for discussion.

Moved links:

• The ØMQ community on GitHub
• Martin Sustrik, Martin Lucina (January 20, 2010). 0MQ: A new approach to messaging – LWN.net
• ZeroMQ is the Answer (a talk at PHP UK conference 2012)
• ZeroMQ an introduction Archived 2010-07-08 at the Wayback Machine
• Why ZeroMQ? (introductory video)
• ZeroMQ: Modern & Fast Networking Stack (overview with Ruby examples)
• ØMQ: The Theoretical Foundation Archived 2020-06-30 at the Wayback Machine -- Otr500 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply