Steve
Throttling definitely helps. I reduced the HWM to 200 and added a 200 ms sleep
every 50 samples and that brought down average round-trip times massively...
So why is throttling helping?
---------------------------------------------------------
Performance Report
---------------------------------------------------------
Transport: ZMQ
Protocol: epgm
Messages sent: 1000
Average / message: 175.561 us
Max time: 5054 us
Min time: 143 us
--
Rohan Bedarkar
MS, Computer Science
University of Chicago
roh...@cs.uchicago.edu
________________________________
From: Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedar...@yahoo.com>
To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] epgm performance numbers
Steve,
I found something interesting. ZMQ roundtrip over epgm drops suddenly at one
point.. Thoughts?
........
......
...
88: 143us
89: 144us
90: 145us
91: 146us
92: 147us
93: 141us
94: 158us
95: 879us <---------------
96: 4972us
97: 4966us
98: 4969us
99: 4969us
100: 5049us
101: 5049us
102: 5048us
103: 5048us
104: 5051us
105: 5048us
106: 5048us
107: 5048us
108: 5050us
--
Rohan Bedarkar
MS, Computer Science
University of Chicago
roh...@cs.uchicago.edu
________________________________
From: Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedar...@yahoo.com>
To: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] epgm performance numbers
Ok. Let me start with iPerf..
Will update this thread with results as I think it will be really useful to
others as well.
--
Rohan Bedarkar
MS, Computer Science
University of Chicago
roh...@cs.uchicago.edu
________________________________
From: Steven McCoy <steven.mc...@miru.hk>
To: Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedar...@yahoo.com>; ZeroMQ development list
<zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] epgm performance numbers
On 25 October 2012 13:04, Rohan Bedarkar <r_bedar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately no luck. Just tried varying the multicast rates on both sides
anywhere between 1000 to 10000 to even 1000000 but no change. Its a little
counterintuitive that lowering rates can help especially if HWM is sufficiently
high. I am using 32 bit SuSe on one side and 64 bit SuSe on the other side.
>
>
>Are there any configs that I might have overlooked?
>
>
>Both my repeater application and originating application are very light so I
>doubt these latencies are anywhere in there. If I simply switch to TCP the
>performance is really good.
>
>
First set a baseline with iperf.
Second try the performance tools in ZeroMQ.
Third try the performance tools in OpenPGM.
Due to the high watermark you have set in ZeroMQ it might be an issue
previously raised: application level throttling is required, although it need
only be coarse grained. The problem with high speed pushing into ZeroMQ means
you saturate the memory bus queuing up everything and slow the entire system
down causing performance to be significantly worse.
Reliable multicast is not easy™
--
Steve-o
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
