[zeromq-dev] Comparing OpenDDS and ZeroMQ Usage and Performance

Peter Alexander vel.accel at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 11:23:13 CEST 2010


On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:
> Peter,
>
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:
>>> This regression results from removing some kernel-bypass functionality
>>> (namely lock-free polling) in exchange for more functionality (namely
>>> allowing for more than 63 threads to use 0MQ sockets).
>>>
>> Just out of curiosity, If a regression is involved for an off hand use
>> case (more than 63 threads), why not have this as an optional
>> configuration flag prior to compiling.
>
> The change cuts through the most of 0MQ codebase. Thus you would end up
> with virtually maintaining two separate codebases.
>
> Moreover, lock-free polling doesn't provide enough functionality to
> implement zmq_poll so this function would have to be disabled in the
> "optimised" branch.
>
> Also, you would have to specify number of threads you are going to use
> 0MQ from in advance (this has API implications).
>
> Finally, the work on migrating 0MQ sockets between OS threads that's
> going on now wouldn't be possible with the lock-free polling.
>
> All in all, if someone feels that maintaining a highly optimised but
> less functional version of 0MQ for Windows is worth of the effort, just
> go on!
>
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>

As I mentally absorb the 0MQ source code, this type of information is
very useful.

Thank you for such a detailed explanation. :)



More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list