If anyone's super interested in this, you can use the THRIFT-591 patch on Windows or *nix. The full build runs the stress-test in all the possible server and socket configurations, so you can look at relative performance that way.
- Rush On Aug 5, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Bryan Duxbury wrote: > Sorry, but I don't have really solid details to back up my assertions. I > wish I'd had the sense to write a blog post about it at the time. > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Dieter Plaetinck <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:18:42 -0700 >> Bryan Duxbury <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The explanation I got when I looked into it before is that the >>> localhost portion of the TCP stack has been crazy optimized, so it's >>> basically no worse than domain sockets. >> >> Does this also apply to non-127.0.0.1 ip's which are on the local host? >> (like 192.168.0.1 or even a public ip?) >> >> Anyway, some reading material suggests that unix domain sockets *are* >> (somewhat) faster. Ie: >> >> http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2009/11/realworld-benchmarking-of-keyvalue-stores.html >> http://osnet.cs.binghamton.edu/publications/TR-20070820.pdf >> >> .. but I still need to check the details. >> >> Dieter >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
