[zeromq-dev] Does ZeroMQ pay a lot in terms of marshalling compared to akka and clojure.core.async?

Bennie Kloosteman bklooste at gmail.com
Fri Oct 11 06:57:26 CEST 2013

Tony , did you read my whole post ?

"Note pure Java solutions like Java NIO may be better than JeroMQ , there
was a discussion on this earlier . I dont know JeroMQs architecture but
pure solutions tend to consider the GC issues rather than trivially
wrapping the API , they reuse byte[] buffers to copy from and to the kernel
, and may even employ  unsafe / JNI code  to self manage some buffers so
you dont need to  pin the GC .. . "


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Tony Arcieri <bascule at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Bennie Kloosteman <bklooste at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Yes compared to native langauges all GC languages incur extra IO costs
>> eg  When writing both languages they need to read/copy the data to the
>> kernel , but the GC language needs to tell the GC to pin each buffer so it
>> doesnt reloccate it ,this can be significant for lots of small packets.
> This isn't true at all. I suggest you look into JVM features like direct
> buffers and pay particular attention to LMAX disruptor. It's possible to
> keep all buffers off the GC-managed heap and build applications that
> completely preallocate all memory they use even when running on the JVM so
> they have zero allocation load or garbage collection.
> --
> Tony Arcieri
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131011/0f55333a/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list