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

Bennie Kloosteman bklooste at gmail.com
Fri Aug 31 04:08:22 CEST 2012

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Julie Anderson <
julie.anderson.uk at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I said in the text you quoted: "I will try to come up with a simple
> version to do the same thing."
> But Stuart did that for me in C. My thanks to him.
> I am not complaining about anything... Just trying to understand why the
> extra latency is necessary. There are already some very good answers here
> about that. This extra latency by itself does not make ZeroMQ bad or slow.
> I think Robert was the one that addressed that very well. The minority of
> financial syInbox (634)stems (hedge funds and exchanges) will care about
> 10 microseconds.

Exchanges will ,  Hedge funds wont ( since they are dealing with at least
100 micro seconds from the exchange + the links and their business logic) .
Anyway except for the exchange itself  ( which doesn't deal with links in
their quotes) I haven't seen a system that beats 1ms consistently  ( though
there are probably a hand full ) in a real life environment over real WAN
links . 10 us is 1% of  that.  Unless you host at the exchange or have some
special traffic shaped connection your also lucky to get 1ms through  their
routers and firewall. So get to 1 ms .. if you can  , then worry about the
micro seconds..

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20120831/0342c15e/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list