On 09/03/2014 11:35 AM, Michael Goulish wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 09/03/2014 08:51 AM, Michael Goulish wrote:
>>> That point is where I seem to find the best performance on my
>>> system: 123,500 messages per second received.  ( i.e. 247,000
>>> transfers per second ) using about 180% CPU ( i.e. 90% each of
>>> 2 processors. )
>>
>> If you are sending direct between the sender and receiver process (i.e.
>> no intermediary process), then why are you doubling the number of
>> messages sent to get 'transfers per second'? One transfer is the sending
>> of a message from one process to another, which in this case is the same
>> as messages sent or received.
>>
> 
> Yes, this is interesting.
> 
> I need a way to make a fair comparison between something like this setup 
> (simple peer-to-peer) and the Dispatch Router numbers I was getting
> earlier.
> 
> 
> For the router, the analogous topology is    
> 
>     writer --> router --> reader
> 
> in which case I counted each message twice.
> 
> 
> 
> But it does not seem right to count a single message in
>    writer --> router --> reader 
> as "2 transfers", while counting a single message in
>    writer --> reader
> as only "1 transfer".
> 
> Because -- from the application point of view, those two topologies 
> are doing the same work.

You should probably be using "throughput" and not "transfers" in this case.

> 
> 
> 
> Also I think that I *need* to count    writer-->router-->reader   
> as "2", because in *this* case:
> 
> 
>      writer -->  router --> reader_1
>                       \
>                        \--> reader_2
> 
> 
> ...I need to count that as "3" .
> 
> 
> 
> ? Thoughts ?
> 
> 

Reply via email to