Thanks, will definitely look into it
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Diego Duclos <diego.duc...@gmail.com>wrote: > Not sure if this'll be useful, but I made some latency testing code at the > latest zmq gathering in brussels, I've tested it successfully to measure > how much a micro instance on ec2 could take asynchronously when getting > traffic from europe. It's in python though, but feel free to try it out: > https://github.com/cncfanatics/latencyTest > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:13 PM, ashwini ramamurthy < > ashwini.ra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi , >> Thank you all for your inputs. Your right, I should do asynchronous tasks >> and multi-cast to compare. That was my next step. I will be using PUB-PUB >> and PUSH-PULL. >> >> >> -Ashwini >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Pieter Hintjens <piet...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Right. If you care about performance you will always want an >>> asynchronous model, and in this case ZeroMQ's batching will make a big >>> impact. A latency critical request reply scenario is very uncommon. >>> >>> Pieter >>> On Jul 12, 2013 9:00 PM, "Trevor Bernard" <trevor.bern...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In your performance experiment ZeroMQ will always be slower than TCP. >>>> There is a small overhead to using ZeroMQ but it's mitigated by other smart >>>> things it does like smart batching to avoid redundant network stack >>>> traversals. But if all you're doing is a synchronous PING/PONG, you lose >>>> that speed benefit entirely and might as well just use TCP. >>>> >>>> ZeroMQ's value-add over TCP is stuff like API simplicity, >>>> asynchronicity, message queuing/routing, multi-cast, atomic multi-part >>>> messaging, etc. If speed is your concern, I would suggest redefining your >>>> problem and try to model it asynchronously. >>>> >>>> One embodiment might be: >>>> >>>> Use PUSH/PULL to distribute the work and PUB/SUB to aggregate the >>>> results. >>>> >>>> Warmest regards, >>>> >>>> Trev >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Diego Duclos >>>> <diego.duc...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Seeing as zeroMQ is most likely running on top of tcp in this case, it >>>>> seems natural that for small messages the processing time of this extra >>>>> layer of code is adding a noticeable processing time. >>>>> You can find a really detailed write-up on performance at >>>>> http://www.zeromq.org/results:0mq-tests-v03 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 7:51 PM, ashwini ramamurthy < >>>>> ashwini.ra...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> To compare the performance of zeromq and tcp I did the following >>>>>> experiment >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Experimental setup for zeromq * >>>>>> >>>>>> - android client(Motorola razr) which runs jeromq. >>>>>> - java server(PC running Linux) which runs java binding of zeromq >>>>>> - Using the REQUEST-REPLY messaging pattern >>>>>> - Sending 100/1000 messages to the server and 100/1000 messages >>>>>> to client (synchronous) >>>>>> - The client sends a hello message and waits for a reply from the >>>>>> server to send another message(ping-pong) >>>>>> - The server waits for a message and replies with a hello for >>>>>> every message sent >>>>>> - Both the devices were connected through wifi >>>>>> - *On an avg:For 100 messages the time taken was 937 msec* >>>>>> - *On an avg:For 1000 messages the time taken was 8270 msec* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Experimental setup for TCP* >>>>>> >>>>>> - android client (Motorola razr) >>>>>> - java server (PC running Linux) >>>>>> - Using a REQ-REP pattern(ping-pong) >>>>>> - Sending 100/1000 messages to the server and 100/1000 back to >>>>>> client(synchronous) >>>>>> - Same as above, client sends a hello message to server and waits >>>>>> to receive a world message before sending the next message. >>>>>> - Both the devices were connected through wifi >>>>>> - *On an avg:For 100 messages the time taken was 504 msec* >>>>>> - *On an avg:For 1000 messages the time taken was 5240 msec* >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this excepted? or am i missing something or doing something wrong? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ashwini >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
