s.com
Subject: Re: Performance: Sending a message with ~150k items,
approx 3.3mb, can I do better than 100ms?
If you can find a way to make it faster, please send a patch!
:)
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Alex Black
*From:* Kenton Varda [mailto:ken...@google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:06 PM
> *To:* Alex Black
> *Cc:* protobuf@googlegroups.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: Performance: Sending a message with ~150k items, approx
> 3.3mb, can I do better than 100ms?
>
> So, 172 MB/s for comp
tobuf@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Performance: Sending a message with ~150k items,
approx 3.3mb, can I do better than 100ms?
So, 172 MB/s for composition + serialization. Sounds about
right.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alex Black
iginal Message-
>> From: protobuf@googlegroups.com [mailto:proto...@googlegroups.com] On
>> Behalf Of Alex Black
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:05 AM
>> To: Protocol Buffers
>> Subject: Re: Performance: Sending a message with ~150k items, approx
>> 3.3mb, can I
009 3:26 AM
To: Alex Black
Cc: Protocol Buffers
Subject: Re: Performance: Sending a message with ~150k items, approx
3.3mb, can I do better than 100ms?
OK. If your message composition (or parsing, on the receiving end)
takes a lot of time, you might look into how much of that is due to
m
them - I'll
> revisit tomorrow.
>
> Thx.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: protobuf@googlegroups.com [mailto:proto...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Alex Black
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:05 AM
> To: Protocol Buffers
> Subject: Re: Performance: Sending a m
mance: Sending a message with ~150k items, approx 3.3mb, can
I do better than 100ms?
ok, I took I/O out of the picture by serializing each message into a
pre-allocated buffer, and this time I did a more through measurement.
Benchmark 1: Complete scenario
- average time 262ms (100 runs)
Benchm
ok, I took I/O out of the picture by serializing each message into a
pre-allocated buffer, and this time I did a more through measurement.
Benchmark 1: Complete scenario
- average time 262ms (100 runs)
Benchmark 2: Same as # 1 but no IO
- average time 250ms (100 runs)
Benchmark 3: Same as 2 but
Oh, I didn't even know you were including composition in there. My
benchmarks are only for serialization of already-composed messages.
But this still doesn't tell us how much time is spent on network I/O vs.
protobuf serialization. My guess is that once you factor that out, your
performance is pr
If I comment out the actual serialization and sending of the message
(so I am just composing messages, and clearing them each batch) then
the 100ms drops to about 50ms.
On Jul 14, 12:36 am, Alex Black wrote:
> I'm sending a message with about ~150k repeated items in it, total
> size is about 3.3
Speed varies a lot depending on the precise content. My benchmarks
generally show serialization performance somewhere between 100 MB/s and 1
GB/s, whereas you're seeing 33MB/s, but my benchmarks do not include any
kind of I/O. Maybe you could separate the serialization step from the I/O
(by seria
11 matches
Mail list logo
