[zeromq-dev] migration 4.1.2 to 4.2.2

Doron Somech somdoron at gmail.com
Mon Mar 13 11:19:34 CET 2017


Yes.

Also, consider using the wait_all, which should yield better performance.

On Mar 13, 2017 10:13 AM, "brunobodin ." <brunobodin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Doron
>
> In my test, the timers are not supposed to include the poller creation
> time. To be sure, I increased the iteration count, but the result stay the
> same (10% increase or so). This run does not include your PR.
> Does this PR apply to both the new and old APIs ?
>
> Bruno
>
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Following is a PR that fix the slow performance of zmq_poll
>>
>> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2364
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Doron Somech <somdoron at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170313/413f6d18/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list