[zeromq-dev] Out-of-the-box zeromq Unexpected Low Performance on Windows

[Martin Sustrik]

Christian,

Thanks for knowing the list know!

Martin

Baribeau, Christian wrote:
> Allo Martin!
> 
> Found the problem. It was with the two Windows XP platforms used during the test (combination of anti-virus and monitor software).
> 
> A fresh install of XP Windows SP3 on two other machines proved that there was no performance issue along.
> 
> Merci.
> 
> Christian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org [mailto:zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org] On Behalf Of Martin Sustrik
> Sent: April 18, 2010 7:40 AM
> To: 0MQ development list
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Out-of-the-box zeromq Unexpected Low Performance on Windows
> 
> Allo Christian,
> 
>> We tried a combination of large message sizes (up to 17000 bytes) and
>> large number of message (1000, 5000, 10000) but the local_thr.exe did
>> not finish and display the stats. Further investigation (Windows'
>> perfmon tool and task manager) indicated that a large number of messages
>> seem to be dropped at the remote_thr.exe side before reaching "wire". In
>> our test setup, the two machines are directly connected together (i.e.
>> no switches, no routers). With this setup, I would expect that all
>> messages are sent and received assuming that two machines have similar
>> CPU and network capacity.
> 
> A sanity check: Are you starting local_thr before remote_thr?
> 
> Throughput test is based on PUB/SUB sockets (not an ideal option) and
> PUB/SUB socket semantics is that of radio transmission. PUB (remote_thr)
> publishes messages and in nobody is listening, they are simply dropped.
> 
>> We also tried this same test with two Windows Server 2003 based machines
>> and a combination of Windows Server 2003 and XP machines (all Windows OS
>> are 32-bit version). In all cases we obtained similar results as the
>> original test on two XP machines. A quick code walkthrough and network
>> cable test did not reveal anything suspicious. I assume that the values
>> defined in the platform.hpp and config.hpp files are a good start (i.e.
>> only change them when necessary).
>>
>> So, the hardware seems ok. The source code seems ok. The test setup
>> seems ok.
>>
>> Could we have missed configuring a setting/flag/#ifdef/#define during
>> the build process on Windows using MSVC2008 Express?
> 
> No. It should work out of the box.
> 
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> 
> This e-mail from Ultra Electronics Holdings plc and any attachments to it are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you have received it in error please notify the sender and delete it from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. All communications may be subject to interception or monitoring for operational and/or security purposes. Please rely on your own virus checking as the sender cannot accept any liability for any damage arising from any bug or virus infection. Ultra Electronics Holdings plc is a company registered in England and Wales, registration number 2830397. The address of its registered office is 417 Bridport Road, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 8UA.
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev