[zeromq-dev] Efficiency for very few short messages

Jason Smith jason.nevar.smith at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 01:26:47 CET 2013


Hi Dan,

Just tested the debug version and it does drop but not as much as you
listed. Also of note I have been testing on 64 bit windows 7, i7-2600 with
a large amount of Ram. The next test for me will be to look at where the
time is taken up, however thought I would report on what I have seen so
far.

- J


On 29 January 2013 11:16, Jason Smith <jason.nevar.smith at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Here's something I have found with your code. Testing here I see the same
> speed up for all numbers of equations. I am using the release version of
> the dll however. About to test the debug version of the dll to see if I get
> different behaviour.
>
> - J
>
>
> On 23 January 2013 13:56, dan smith <dan25311 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for taking a look at it.
>>
>> As for the "while(nfinish > 0" loop, my experience is that it does not
>> have significant effect on the time. If I remove it and allow the threads
>> to die, the difference is negligible. In the real application the threads
>> needs to remain alive of course, I just tried to check that the thread
>> closing is not the reason.
>>
>> Closing the sockets in threads might not be the reason either, a
>> terminating message is sent back to the main thread before that.
>>
>> I use zeromq-3.2.2.
>>
>> In the real application I am sending a pointer, here the 8 As simulate
>> that.
>>
>> I am looking forward to your further comments very much. Hope that I am
>> the one who made some mistake and there is a solution for sending few small
>> messages at the latency that I measured for large number of messages (that
>> was under 1 microseconds which would be cool)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Jason Smith <jason.nevar.smith at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 23 January 2013 11:42, dan smith <dan25311 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> while(nfinish > 0)
>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't had a chance to compile this here. For some reason have a linker
>>> issue on my work machine.
>>>
>>> At first glance the "while(nfinish > 0)" loop assumes sequential thread
>>> completion for best time. For example you only know of thread 7
>>> finishing only until 1 through to 6 have completed. Don't know if this is
>>> affecting things drastically or not. Maybe switching to polling here and
>>> updating a "completed" vector list might work better.
>>>
>>> Another area I would look into is the linger of the sockets, it
>>> shouldn't affect closing them down within the thread however its something
>>> to consider.
>>>
>>> When I get a chance I would be looking to place more asserts in to make
>>> sure messages were doing what I thought they were (send and receive calls
>>> return values). Then I would be checking the timing of any close down code.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps in the meantime.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130129/df3ad493/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list