As far as I see you haven't included your test methodology or your test code. Without any information about your test I can't have any opinion on your results. Maybe I missed an earlier email where you included information about your test environment and methodology?
Brian On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Julie Anderson < julie.anderson...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just tested ZeroMQ and Java NIO in the same machine. > > The results: > * > - ZeroMQ:* > > message size: 13 [B] > roundtrip count: 100000 > average latency: *19.620* [us] *<====== ONE-WAY LATENCY* > > *- Java NIO Selector:* (EPoll) > > Average RTT (round-trip time) latency of a 13-byte message: 15.342 [us] > Min Time: 11.664 [us] > 99.999% percentile: *15.340* [us] *<====== RTT LATENCY* > > *Conclusion:* That's *39.240 versus 15.340* so ZeroMQ overhead on top of > TCP is *156%* or *23.900 nanoseconds* !!! That's excessive. I would > expect 1 or 2 microseconds there. > > So my questions are: > > 1) What does ZeroMQ do under the rood that justifies so many extra clock > cycles? (I am really curious to know) > > 2) Do people agree that 23 microseconds are just too much? > > -Julie > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
