Share your newest code with the list. Maybe someone will run it and identify further improvements.
On Mar 30, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Alexander V Vershilov <[email protected]> wrote: > I have tried 2M messages the result is roughly the same (as in second > letter), i.e. TCP outperform ZMQ Push->Pull in maximum 2 times, and on > extreme size results are the same. Its possible that I've made some mistake > in TCP so the programs are not equivalent. > > However I didn't try to optimize any zmq or kernel options. > > So now difference looks OK to use ZeroMQ in my program. But if there is a > room for additional optimizations or better patterns it will be very good. > > -- > Alexander > > On Mar 29, 2014 2:17 AM, "Pieter Hintjens" <[email protected]> wrote: > 10,000 messages is often too little to get significant results. Try > sending 2M small messages... > > zmq_send copies the data, which for large messages costs more. > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Alexander V Vershilov > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 27 March 2014 16:48, Charles Remes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 27, 2014, at 4:41 AM, Alexander V Vershilov > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm trying to write a small benchmark program using zeromq-4.0.4 that will > >> be used as a > >> prototype for higher level library. Test program creates a pair of > >> asynchronous sockets and > >> send a bunch of messages with no acknowledgement and a the end reads a > >> reply. > >> > >> > >> Surprisingly, this test program does not compare favourably with an > >> equivalent direct > >> implementation over TCP. I have the following timings for sending 10,000 > >> messages of the > >> given size on the localhost: > >> > >> > >> This is surprising. > >> > >> > >> Is there something I am misunderstanding here? I have gone through several > >> `iterations of > >> my benchmarks, but perhaps you can point out any problem with it? > >> > >> > >> > >> Have you tried comparing your results to the built-in local_lat/remote_lat > >> and local_thr/remote_thr benchmark programs? You could easily modify the > >> throughput benchmark to use PUSH/PULL sockets and see if the results differ > >> wildly from the pub/sub results. > > > > > > > > I've tried the tests from local_thr/remote_thr they are also use PUSH/PULL > > socket pair. The only difference is that > > that benchmarks are preparing message 'zmq_msg_init_size' and then > > 'zmq_sendmsg', while in my > > benchmark I'm just using zemq_send, this better reflect TCP case. New > > variant gives me extra ~2-10kMb/s depending > > on the message size. However TCP is still faster, except very big messages > > where it's on par with ZeroMQ. > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > Alexander Vershilov > > mail-to: [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
