[zeromq-dev] Anybody with updated performance results http://zeromq.org/area:results ?

Brett Viren bv at bnl.gov
Thu Aug 8 00:01:06 CEST 2019

Francesco <francesco.montorsi at gmail.com> writes:

> If you are referring the PUB/SUB proxy throughput graph, consider it's generated by
> this util
>   https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/perf/proxy_thr.cpp
> which uses ZMQ_XPUB_NODROP=1 so there are no drops at all :)

Oh, wow!  I didn't know this feature.  This may prove very useful to me.

> Yeah, good point... probably the graph needs some "zoom-in" to make that more
> evident but anyway I would propose the following explanation: TCP transport has
> much more buffer than INPROC transport (because beside the HWM buffers owned by
> ZMQ it also has TCP kernel buffers to take in count... on those boxes with plenty of
> RAM the kernel socket buffers can be "big" like 16MB)... perhaps that explains why
> with TCP the NIC always has its TX queues filled and finally achieves a higher PPS ?
> Not sure...

Ah.  Well, this story makes sense to me.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20190807/3599575e/attachment.sig>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list