[zeromq-dev] Odd numbers with zeromq

Andrew Hume andrew at research.att.com
Wed Sep 19 20:02:30 CEST 2012


i'm not asserting that in all cases.
but for the general case of intermachine traffic via tcp/ip sockets underneath,
then i think that is a reasonable number.

of course, there are many technologies and special case stuff that can go faster.

On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Christian Martinez wrote:

> Maybe I’m missing something here, but are people asserting here that one can’t do a request reply MEP with various RPC technologies and exceed 1000 1KB messages a second?
>  
> --CM
>  
> From: zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org [mailto:zeromq-dev-bounces at lists.zeromq.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hume
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:03 PM
> To: ZeroMQ development list
> Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Odd numbers with zeromq
>  
> excessive?
> you are going from a scheme where packets go out in bulk asynchronously,
> to a scheme where a single packet goes out, a process needs to woken up,
> processes a single packet, and then send a single packet, and then wake up the sending process.
> i think you're lucky to get 1k/s.
>  
> a. no. it seems silly from a programming perspective.
>  
> b. if you want efficiency, then do bulk asynchronous acknowledgements via another socket.
>  
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:57 PM, Maninder Batth wrote:
> 
> 
> A difference of 110K to 1k a second seems excessive. But i am not saying it is wrong or right. I am just wondering
>  
> a. Am i doing something silly from api usage perspective
>  
> b. If someone has similar experience, (one way burst, vs send, recieve ack and then send next message), maybe they can share their numbers or validate similar behavior.
>  
> 
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Hume <andrew at research.att.com> wrote:
> why would you expect different?
> REQ/REP involves a synchronous repsonse so there is no opportunity to do anything fast.
>  
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Maninder Batth wrote:
>  
> Paul,
> With messages being sent one way, via pub and sub sockets, i am getting a very decent performance. About 80% of our network gets saturated. 
> The code is zserver.cpp and zclient.cpp
>  
> But if i configure the software such that client only sends the next message, after it has received a response from the server, the throughput  is really bad.
> The code is zserver-ack1.cpp  and zclient-ack1.cpp
> The difference is that in the former case, i can get 110k messages per second , whereas in the latter case,  i can only get 1k messages per second.
> The sockets that i use in latter case are of type REQ and REP. Am i using wrong sockets type ?
>  
>  
> 
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Maninder Batth <whatpuzzlesme at gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul,
> Thank you again for your help. Now with message copying, i am getting a throughput of .8Gb, which is what i would have expected on a 1Gb network.
>  
> 
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Paul Colomiets <paul at colomiets.name> wrote:
> Hi Maninder,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Maninder Batth
> <whatpuzzlesme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Paul,
> > Here is number of messages as seen by the server in one second. Each message
> > is 1024 byte excluding tcp/ip and zmq headers. Based on these numbers and i
> > am getting a throughput of 1.4 Gb/sec.
> > Enclosed is the source code for the server and the client.
> >
> 
> Zeromq closes the message after sending. So you effectively send
> messages of the zero length after first one. You should use
> zmq_msg_copy (or whatever C++ API is there) before  doing send() in
> case you want to reuse message.
> 
> --
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>  
>  
> <zclient.cpp><zclient-ack1.cpp><zserver.cpp><zserver-ack1.cpp>_______________________________________________
> 
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>  
> 
> ------------------
> Andrew Hume  (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845
> andrew at research.att.com  (Work) +1 973-236-2014
> AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>  
> 
> ------------------
> Andrew Hume  (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845
> andrew at research.att.com  (Work) +1 973-236-2014
> AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
>  
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev


------------------
Andrew Hume  (best -> Telework) +1 623-551-2845
andrew at research.att.com  (Work) +1 973-236-2014
AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20120919/4ab11538/attachment.html>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list