Latest code is exactly the same as in benchmarks (local_thr/remote_the from ZeroMQ 4.0.4 tarball), really I'm reusing it now. TCP code is attached in the first message. On Mar 30, 2014 8:16 PM, "Charles Remes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
