[zeromq-dev] Async::Worker, C++ task offloading.

Steven McCoy steven.mccoy at miru.hk
Tue Jul 27 11:11:58 CEST 2010


On 27 July 2010 16:59, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Steven McCoy <steven.mccoy at miru.hk>
> wrote:
> > On 26 July 2010 18:50, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at moloch.sk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given the complexity of benchmarking and high-perf optimisation, letting
> >> people post random benchmarks and tips would just cause confusion IMO.
> >>
> >
> > Definitely as ICC is actually slower for PGM.
>
> Isn't that the kind of knowledge that's worth collecting?  Why do you
> say that letting people post random benchmarks and tips would just
> cause confusion?  We do this all the time on the mailing list, and I
> don't see any confusion.
>
>
As long as there is one reference platform used for every release somewhere
that can provide an indication of performance from one release to the next
it would be fine.  The problem is that messaging performance is always
dependent upon so many factors that individual benchmark results have little
meaning.

You could probably run through the last dozen kernel releases on the same
platform and get very different result sets.

I don't like TIBCO's stance of never publishing any results, or Reuters
stance of publishing completely useless wire speed results as they have no
practical value.

If you can use a standard boring Dell and CentOS and run a heat map graph of
results for 4/5/6 and each set of patterns it would be great.  I wouldn't
want to limit contributed results for alternative platforms such as QNX,
ARM, etc, but there is a value to one core set of readings.

-- 
Steve-o
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20100727/1cb2e55e/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list