Pieter Hintjens wrote:
As the article says for each test, each run produces different
figures. It is somewhat deceptive to quote usec figures on boxes that
run random processes with non RT kernels. A proper test would use two
clean boxes and a dedicated switch.
Note that these tests are done by the guys who make opendds.
ZeroMQ is in 2 of 3 cases faster than DDS ... based on these numbers
it's a little bit strange to do a conclusion that DDS is in general
faster than ZeroMQ !
But this shows the intention of that "performance test" of the DDS guys :)
--Armin
-Pieter
Sent from my Android mobile phone.
On Jun 19, 2010 9:37 PM, "Apps, John" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
These are the summary data points.
OpenDDS Raw Buffer 185 usec
ZeroMQ Raw Buffer 170 usec
Boost.Asio Raw Buffer 75 usec
OpenDDS .NET Object streamed through a Raw Buffer 630 usec
ZeroMQ .NET Object streamed through a Raw Buffer 537 usec
Boost.Asio .NET Object streamed through a Raw Buffer 413 usec
OpenDDS Strongly Typed Data
205 usec
ZeroMQ Strongly Typed Data with Boost Serialization 577 usec
Boost.Asio Strongly Typed Data with Boost Serialization 396 usec
ZeroMQ Strongly Typed Data with Google Protocol Buffers 216 usec
I think an expert eye should be cast over these numbers... In
addition, a message length of 1000 is probably a bit more than 0MQ is
optimized for?
-- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | +491718691813 |
http://twitter.com/johnapps --
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@li. <mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@li.>..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
