On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 01:00 +1100, john skaller wrote: > On 07/02/2012, at 9:15 PM, Staffan Gimåker wrote: > > >> 2) one pair for each thread w/o synchronization > >> How much better will 2) compare to 1)?Is it worth the complexity? > > > > If ZeroMQ is the bottleneck, i.e. not the data source itself, then 2) > > will fare better, for two reasons: > > > > * No synchronization. > > It's not true there is no synchronisation, it just isn't explicit > in the user code. You can't send data from one thread > to another by any means without some kind of barrier > to synchronise the caches.
You either didn't read the OP or you're splitting hairs. Either way, it's strictly less synchronization. And there should be no contention if you use a dedicated socket and io thread per producing thread. /S _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
