Hi Anton, On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:09 AM, anti_tenzor <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > 1. I have measured performance for *in-proc* versus *local tcp* for small > byte arrays and found in-proc method to be 50 times faster. Here I'd like > to ask is > there any additional performance tweaks for in-proc and tcp protocols? > I'm assuming this is a test you ran on Windows. Currently, ZMQ is limited to using select() on Windows for the TCP transport. select() on Windows has a bunch of limitations and is very slow, so your options may be limited as far as ZMQ tweaks for TCP. > 2. It's a pity zmq doesn't support inter-proc communication for windows. > Afaik there is "named pipe" as the most close analogue. Since it is > communication > inside one OS, different IPC implementations should not be compatible in > different OSes. Is there any plans to cover this feature in observable > future? > I can't answer this definitively, but search this mailing list for topics around IOCP (I/O Completion Ports). It's gets discussed every few months - basically, if ZMQ could be patched to support IOCP, then the Windows performance numbers would make a huge leap and IPC (via named pipes) would be supported. > 3. I've managed to compile zmq for ubuntu and I'd like to test it with > ClrZmq (with Mono). Currently I receive DllNotFoundException (for dll > kernel32). > ClrZmq is v3.0-alfa. Is there any guide how to configure and how to use > ClrZmq in Linux? Is it possible for some earlier version of ClrZmq? > There is a section in the clrzmq readme on Mono builds: https://github.com/zeromq/clrzmq#mono-2107-configuration If you have further questions after reading this, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, John
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
