On 08/02/2012, at 1:48 AM, Staffan Gimåker wrote: > 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.
Sorry, you're right. -- john skaller [email protected] _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
