I'm not sure my PR will solve the 10% decrease... I will look into it
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:45 PM, brunobodin . <[email protected]> wrote: > So I am probably paying the cost of not having your PR. > > BB > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Doron Somech <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes. >> >> Also, consider using the wait_all, which should yield better performance. >> >> On Mar 13, 2017 10:13 AM, "brunobodin ." <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Doron >>> >>> In my test, the timers are not supposed to include the poller creation >>> time. To be sure, I increased the iteration count, but the result stay the >>> same (10% increase or so). This run does not include your PR. >>> Does this PR apply to both the new and old APIs ? >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Doron Somech <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Following is a PR that fix the slow performance of zmq_poll >>>> >>>> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2364 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Doron Somech <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> How many iterations in the test? The creation of the zmq poller might >>>>> slow you down a bit at the begining... >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 10, 2017 6:16 PM, "brunobodin ." <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Doron for the explanation >>>>>> >>>>>> I replaced zmq_poll calls in my code, the new API is also easier to >>>>>> use IMHO :-) >>>>>> but FYI, I still notice a slight slowdown in my test (about 10%), but >>>>>> this is far from a unit test so I am not sure this is related to the new >>>>>> poller >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Doron Somech <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not sure, the change only introduced and recent version, I think. I >>>>>>> will make a pull request tomorrow and you will be able to test it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2017 5:43 PM, "Jake" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you all think this is related to the Windows performance issue I >>>>>>>> reported here?: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2328 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Jake >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Doron Somech <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> zmq_poll now use zmq_poller internally, but nof efficiently, >>>>>>>>> because it is being created on every call. This is why you have drop >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> performance, I will fix that anyway. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Polling on thread safe sockets works differently, this is why zmp >>>>>>>>> poller was created. previously zmp poll didnt support thread safe >>>>>>>>> sockets. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bottom line, zmq poll should be deprecated and zmq poller should >>>>>>>>> be used. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2017 3:13 PM, "brunobodin ." <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Doron, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I could make a test and it works, thanks ! >>>>>>>>>> is the signaler new in zmq 4.2.2 ? if not, why are the >>>>>>>>>> performances so différent ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding thread safe socket, I do not use them yet but may test >>>>>>>>>> them (probably RADIO/DISH) in a near future. Are there implications >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> poller and thread safe sockets ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks for your help >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bruno >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Doron Somech <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you can use zmq_poller it will solve it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can make a PR to improve it by making tge creation of the >>>>>>>>>>> signaler lazy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you using thread safe sockets (SERVER CLIENT ...) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2017 13:01, "brunobodin ." <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> digging deeper, the issue seems related to the connect/bind of >>>>>>>>>>>> signaler within the poll function. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:46 AM, brunobodin . < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Luca, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for you anwser... apparently select is the only method >>>>>>>>>>>>> available on windows, and is the one used by the appveyor build. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Draft is not enabled. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> still investigating... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Luca Boccassi < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 17:22 +0100, brunobodin . wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I am in the process of migrating my application (windows, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual 2015) from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 4.1.2 to 4.2.2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The point is that with the new version, polling is now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _very_ slow, making >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > my app quite unusable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Any hint or suggestion about what I could check ? The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> polling method is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "select", optimization options of the compiler are set, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> performances of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the performance tools (inproc_lat, etc) are ok... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I do not know what to look for next... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where you using select before as well? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you by any chance building with the DRAFT APIs enabled? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luca Boccassi >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
