[zeromq-dev] epgm performance numbers

Bennie Kloosteman bklooste at gmail.com
Tue Oct 30 03:14:53 CET 2012


Ethernet contention ?  It is broadcasting

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedarkar at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Steve,
>
> I found something interesting. ZMQ roundtrip over epgm drops suddenly at
> one point.. Thoughts?
> ........
> ......
> ...
> 88: 143us
> 89: 144us
> 90: 145us
> 91: 146us
> 92: 147us
> 93: 141us
> 94: 158us
> 95: 879us <---------------
> 96: 4972us
> 97: 4966us
> 98: 4969us
> 99: 4969us
> 100: 5049us
> 101: 5049us
> 102: 5048us
> 103: 5048us
> 104: 5051us
> 105: 5048us
> 106: 5048us
> 107: 5048us
> 108: 5050us
>
> --
>
> Rohan Bedarkar
> MS, Computer Science
> University of Chicago
> rohanb at cs.uchicago.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedarkar at yahoo.com>
> *To:* ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:32 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [zeromq-dev] epgm performance numbers
>
> Ok. Let me start with iPerf..
>
> Will update this thread with results as I think it will be really useful
> to others as well.
>
>
> --
>
> Rohan Bedarkar
> MS, Computer Science
> University of Chicago
> rohanb at cs.uchicago.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Steven McCoy <steven.mccoy at miru.hk>
> *To:* Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedarkar at yahoo.com>; ZeroMQ development list <
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [zeromq-dev] epgm performance numbers
>
> On 25 October 2012 13:04, Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedarkar at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately no luck. Just tried varying the multicast rates on both
> sides anywhere between 1000 to 10000 to even 1000000 but no change. Its a
> little counterintuitive that lowering rates can help especially if HWM is
> sufficiently high. I am using 32 bit SuSe on one side and 64 bit SuSe on
> the other side.
>
> Are there any configs that I might have overlooked?
>
> Both my repeater application and originating application are very light so
> I doubt these latencies are anywhere in there. If I simply switch to TCP
> the performance is really good.
>
>
> First set a baseline with iperf.
>
> Second try the performance tools in ZeroMQ.
>
> Third try the performance tools in OpenPGM.
>
> Due to the high watermark you have set in ZeroMQ it might be an issue
> previously raised:  application level throttling is required, although it
> need only be coarse grained.  The problem with high speed pushing into
> ZeroMQ means you saturate the memory bus queuing up everything and slow the
> entire system down causing performance to be significantly worse.
>
> Reliable multicast is not easy™
>
> --
> Steve-o
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121030/085b64bf/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list