[zeromq-dev] Too much ZeroMQ overhead versus plain TCP Java NIO Epoll (with measurements)

Brian Knox briank at talksum.com
Wed Aug 29 17:23:11 CEST 2012


As far as I see you haven't included your test methodology or your test
code.  Without any information about your test I can't have any opinion on
your results.  Maybe I missed an earlier email where you included
information about your test environment and methodology?

Brian

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Julie Anderson <
julie.anderson.uk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just tested ZeroMQ and Java NIO in the same machine.
>
> The results:
> *
> - ZeroMQ:*
>
> message size: 13 [B]
> roundtrip count: 100000
> average latency: *19.620* [us] *<====== ONE-WAY LATENCY*
>
> *- Java NIO Selector:* (EPoll)
>
> Average RTT (round-trip time) latency of a 13-byte message: 15.342 [us]
> Min Time: 11.664 [us]
> 99.999% percentile: *15.340* [us] *<====== RTT LATENCY*
>
> *Conclusion:* That's *39.240 versus 15.340* so ZeroMQ overhead on top of
> TCP is *156%* or *23.900 nanoseconds* !!! That's excessive. I would
> expect 1 or 2 microseconds there.
>
> So my questions are:
>
> 1) What does ZeroMQ do under the rood that justifies so many extra clock
> cycles? (I am really curious to know)
>
> 2) Do people agree that 23 microseconds are just too much?
>
> -Julie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20120829/40dc6b25/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list