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 ? > >
