[zeromq-dev] ZMQ performance

A. Mark gougolith at gmail.com
Wed Jan 9 04:42:03 CET 2013

Good guess, but I'm using this one:

    ctx = zmq_init( threads);

from http://api.zeromq.org/3-2:zmq-init

with the number of threads parameter passed as a command line argument to
the test programs. I assume it should have the same effect as zmq_ctx_set()
since zmq_ctx_new is deprecated. So I've tried different number of threads
on each end but it doesn't seem to get better performance with more
threads. BTW to be precise I have 2 command line arguments to client_zmq:

usage: client_zmq <connect-to> <message-size> <message-count> <zmq-threads>

So I can set the internal zmq threads as well as how many workers threads
to spawn in the client.

In server_zmq I can only set the zmq-threads of course.

usage: server_zmq <connect-to> <message-size> <message-count> <zmq-threads>

And yes I'm using the same context in the programs.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
xekoukou at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just guessing here. Are you using the same context in all threads and if
> so, maybe you need to increase the threads that the omq uses inside it.
> http://api.zeromq.org/3-2:zmq-ctx-set
> 2013/1/9 A. Mark <gougolith at gmail.com>
>> OK, so I went back and I fixed a couple of issues and reattached the two
>> modified test programs, added RCV/SND buffer shaping and now it uses
>> zmq_msg_init_data (zero-copy) for better performance. I'm getting about
>> 2.5GB/s avg at best which is a lot better then with remote_thr local_thr
>> but still a 25% less then what I'm expecting at least 3.4GB/s.
>> When I initiate 4 simultaneous procesess(not threads) for each client and
>> server via separate ports the total does add up to ~3.3GB/s as it should.
>> The trouble is for that to work that way I need to bind 4 ports and the
>> whole point in using accept is to have multiple connections on the same
>> port traditionally.
>> Is there a way to achieve the desired throughput via 0MQ without using
>> separate ports for each socket? I think using multiple connections (via
>> separate threads) on the same ZMQ socket should naturally do it but
>> according to the results it doesn't happen.
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:16 PM, A. Mark <gougolith at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I'm very interested in porting my current transfer engine to 0MQ. The
>>> current engine is written in pure BSD sockets and has certain limitations
>>> that would be easily overcome by QMQ's intelligent and versatile design.
>>> However my main concern is performance on very long messages in access of
>>> 1MB. The current backbone MT design is the following:
>>> control node (client ) <---> server A--- worker node 1 <---> worker node
>>> 1 ------ server B
>>> |
>>> |
>>>                                        |------------ worker node 2 <--->
>>> worker node 2 -----------|
>>> |                                                                          |
>>>                                        --------------worker node N <--->
>>> worker node N ----------
>>> So the control client controls whatever task needs to be performed by
>>> submitting requests to a server, the actual work is done by the worker
>>> nodes in each separate thread on the server. The worker nodes are
>>> synchronized across the two servers but they work independently since they
>>> are working on the same task. Each worker node has it's own FD but connect
>>> to the same TCP address and port. The main task of each node is to perform
>>> some transformation on some large data buffer from a buffer pool then push
>>> the finished result to the other server. My current benchmarks gives me
>>> 3.5GBytes/s using TCP over the local loop when simply pushing the buffers
>>> without doing any work.
>>> I ran the 0MQ benchmarks local_thr and remote_thr, and the performance
>>> is only 1.5GB/s at best, with large buffers(messages) and lower with small
>>> ones. I'm also concerned looking at the benchmarks for the 10GE test. My
>>> current engine can perform at a steady 1.1GBytes/s with large buffers over
>>> 10GE.
>>> I've also tried a modified version of the two benchmarks to try to
>>> emulate the above situation, but the performance is about the same. The
>>> modified MT code is attached.
>>> Is there something else I need to do to get the best performance out of
>>> 0MQ using MT for this work flow engine?
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> --
> Sincerely yours,
>      Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130108/b9f34309/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list