Steven McCoy wrote: > On 27 July 2010 16:59, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Steven McCoy <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 26 July 2010 18:50, Martin Sustrik <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> Given the complexity of benchmarking and high-perf optimisation, > letting > >> people post random benchmarks and tips would just cause > confusion IMO. > >> > > > > Definitely as ICC is actually slower for PGM. > > Isn't that the kind of knowledge that's worth collecting? Why do you > say that letting people post random benchmarks and tips would just > cause confusion? We do this all the time on the mailing list, and I > don't see any confusion. > > > As long as there is one reference platform used for every release > somewhere that can provide an indication of performance from one release > to the next it would be fine. The problem is that messaging performance > is always dependent upon so many factors that individual benchmark > results have little meaning. > > You could probably run through the last dozen kernel releases on the > same platform and get very different result sets. > > I don't like TIBCO's stance of never publishing any results, or Reuters > stance of publishing completely useless wire speed results as they have > no practical value. > > If you can use a standard boring Dell and CentOS and run a heat map > graph of results for 4/5/6 and each set of patterns it would be great. > I wouldn't want to limit contributed results for alternative platforms > such as QNX, ARM, etc, but there is a value to one core set of readings.
Fully agreed with the above. Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
