[zeromq-dev] migration 4.1.2 to 4.2.2

Doron Somech somdoron at gmail.com
Fri Mar 10 17:30:02 CET 2017


How many iterations in the test? The creation of the zmq poller might slow
you down a bit at the begining...

On Mar 10, 2017 6:16 PM, "brunobodin ." <brunobodin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Doron for the explanation
>
> I replaced zmq_poll calls in my code, the new API is also easier to use
> IMHO :-)
> but FYI, I still notice a slight slowdown in my test (about 10%), but this
> is far from a unit test so I am not sure this is related to the new poller
>
> Bruno
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not sure, the change only introduced and recent version,  I think. I will
>> make a pull request tomorrow and you will be able to test it.
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2017 5:43 PM, "Jake" <jake.cobb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you all think this is related to the Windows performance issue I
>>> reported here?:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2328
>>>
>>> -Jake
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> zmq_poll now use zmq_poller internally, but nof efficiently, because it
>>>> is being created on every call. This is why you have drop in performance, I
>>>> will fix that anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Polling on thread safe sockets works differently, this is why zmp
>>>> poller was created. previously zmp poll didnt support thread safe sockets.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line, zmq poll should be deprecated and zmq poller should be
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 10, 2017 3:13 PM, "brunobodin ." <brunobodin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doron,
>>>>>
>>>>> I could make a test and it works, thanks !
>>>>> is the signaler new in zmq 4.2.2 ? if not, why are the performances so
>>>>> différent ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding thread safe socket, I do not use them yet but may test them
>>>>> (probably RADIO/DISH) in a near future. Are there implications between
>>>>> poller and thread safe sockets ?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for your help
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can use zmq_poller it will solve it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can make a PR to improve it by making tge creation of the signaler
>>>>>> lazy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you using thread safe sockets (SERVER CLIENT ...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2017 13:01, "brunobodin ." <brunobodin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> digging deeper, the issue seems related to the connect/bind of
>>>>>>> signaler within the poll function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:46 AM, brunobodin . <brunobodin at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Luca,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks for you anwser... apparently select is the only method
>>>>>>>> available on windows, and is the one used by the appveyor build.
>>>>>>>> Draft is not enabled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> still investigating...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Luca Boccassi <
>>>>>>>> luca.boccassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 17:22 +0100, brunobodin . wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I am in the process of migrating my application (windows, visual
>>>>>>>>> 2015) from
>>>>>>>>> > 4.1.2 to 4.2.2
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > The point is that with the new version, polling is now _very_
>>>>>>>>> slow, making
>>>>>>>>> > my app quite unusable.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Any hint or suggestion about what I could check ? The polling
>>>>>>>>> method is
>>>>>>>>> > "select", optimization options of the compiler are set, the
>>>>>>>>> performances of
>>>>>>>>> > the performance tools (inproc_lat, etc) are ok...
>>>>>>>>> > I do not know what to look for next...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > thanks
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Bruno
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where you using select before as well?
>>>>>>>>> Are you by any chance building with the DRAFT APIs enabled?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> Luca Boccassi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>>>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> https://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20170310/820094cc/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list