On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Julie Anderson < [email protected]> wrote:
> As I said in the text you quoted: "I will try to come up with a simple > version to do the same thing." > > But Stuart did that for me in C. My thanks to him. > > I am not complaining about anything... Just trying to understand why the > extra latency is necessary. There are already some very good answers here > about that. This extra latency by itself does not make ZeroMQ bad or slow. > I think Robert was the one that addressed that very well. The minority of > financial syInbox (634)stems (hedge funds and exchanges) will care about > 10 microseconds. > > Exchanges will , Hedge funds wont ( since they are dealing with at least 100 micro seconds from the exchange + the links and their business logic) . Anyway except for the exchange itself ( which doesn't deal with links in their quotes) I haven't seen a system that beats 1ms consistently ( though there are probably a hand full ) in a real life environment over real WAN links . 10 us is 1% of that. Unless you host at the exchange or have some special traffic shaped connection your also lucky to get 1ms through their routers and firewall. So get to 1 ms .. if you can , then worry about the micro seconds.. Ben
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
