i'm not asserting that in all cases. but for the general case of intermachine traffic via tcp/ip sockets underneath, then i think that is a reasonable number.
of course, there are many technologies and special case stuff that can go faster. On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Christian Martinez wrote: > Maybe I’m missing something here, but are people asserting here that one > can’t do a request reply MEP with various RPC technologies and exceed 1000 > 1KB messages a second? > > --CM > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Hume > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:03 PM > To: ZeroMQ development list > Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Odd numbers with zeromq > > excessive? > you are going from a scheme where packets go out in bulk asynchronously, > to a scheme where a single packet goes out, a process needs to woken up, > processes a single packet, and then send a single packet, and then wake up > the sending process. > i think you're lucky to get 1k/s. > > a. no. it seems silly from a programming perspective. > > b. if you want efficiency, then do bulk asynchronous acknowledgements via > another socket. > > On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:57 PM, Maninder Batth wrote: > > > A difference of 110K to 1k a second seems excessive. But i am not saying it > is wrong or right. I am just wondering > > a. Am i doing something silly from api usage perspective > > b. If someone has similar experience, (one way burst, vs send, recieve ack > and then send next message), maybe they can share their numbers or validate > similar behavior. > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Hume <[email protected]> wrote: > why would you expect different? > REQ/REP involves a synchronous repsonse so there is no opportunity to do > anything fast. > > On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Maninder Batth wrote: > > Paul, > With messages being sent one way, via pub and sub sockets, i am getting a > very decent performance. About 80% of our network gets saturated. > The code is zserver.cpp and zclient.cpp > > But if i configure the software such that client only sends the next message, > after it has received a response from the server, the throughput is really > bad. > The code is zserver-ack1.cpp and zclient-ack1.cpp > The difference is that in the former case, i can get 110k messages per second > , whereas in the latter case, i can only get 1k messages per second. > The sockets that i use in latter case are of type REQ and REP. Am i using > wrong sockets type ? > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Maninder Batth <[email protected]> > wrote: > Paul, > Thank you again for your help. Now with message copying, i am getting a > throughput of .8Gb, which is what i would have expected on a 1Gb network. > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Paul Colomiets <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Maninder, > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Maninder Batth > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul, > > Here is number of messages as seen by the server in one second. Each message > > is 1024 byte excluding tcp/ip and zmq headers. Based on these numbers and i > > am getting a throughput of 1.4 Gb/sec. > > Enclosed is the source code for the server and the client. > > > > Zeromq closes the message after sending. So you effectively send > messages of the zero length after first one. You should use > zmq_msg_copy (or whatever C++ API is there) before doing send() in > case you want to reuse message. > > -- > Paul > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > <zclient.cpp><zclient-ack1.cpp><zserver.cpp><zserver-ack1.cpp>_______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > ------------------ > Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845 > [email protected] (Work) +1 973-236-2014 > AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > ------------------ > Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845 > [email protected] (Work) +1 973-236-2014 > AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA > > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev ------------------ Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845 [email protected] (Work) +1 973-236-2014 AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
