[zeromq-dev] Question about zeromq throughput benchmarks.

Alexander V Vershilov alexander.vershilov at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 10:20:58 CET 2014


On 27 March 2014 16:48, Charles Remes <lists at chuckremes.com> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2014, at 4:41 AM, Alexander V Vershilov <
> alexander.vershilov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m trying to write a small benchmark program using zeromq-4.0.4 that will
> be used as a
> prototype for higher level library. Test program creates a pair of
> asynchronous sockets and
> send a bunch of messages with no acknowledgement and a the end reads a
> reply.
>
>
> Surprisingly, this test program does not compare favourably with an
> equivalent direct
> implementation over TCP. I have the following timings for sending 10,000
> messages of the
> given size on the localhost:
>
>
> This is surprising.
>
>
> Is there something I am misunderstanding here? I have gone through several
> `iterations of
> my benchmarks, but perhaps you can point out any problem with it?
>
>
>
> Have you tried comparing your results to the built-in local_lat/remote_lat
> and local_thr/remote_thr benchmark programs? You could easily modify the
> throughput benchmark to use PUSH/PULL sockets and see if the results differ
> wildly from the pub/sub results.
>


I've tried the tests from local_thr/remote_thr they are also use PUSH/PULL
socket pair. The only difference is that
that benchmarks are preparing message 'zmq_msg_init_size' and then
'zmq_sendmsg', while in my
benchmark I'm just using zemq_send, this better reflect TCP case. New
variant  gives me extra ~2-10kMb/s depending
on the message size. However TCP is still faster, except very big messages
where it's on par with ZeroMQ.

Thanks.

-- 
Alexander Vershilov
  mail-to: alexander.vershilov at tweag.io
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20140328/5aefb767/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list