[nanomsg] Re: Performance tests so far
- From: Gonzalo Diethelm <gonzalo.diethelm@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:06:55 -0400
Hi Martin. I just logged three issues:
#71: inproc_lat and incproc_thr perf tests assert on Linux and Win32
https://github.com/250bpm/nanomsg/issues/71
#72: local_lat and remote_lat perf tests hang on Win32
https://github.com/250bpm/nanomsg/issues/72
#73: local_thr and remote_thr perf tests assert on Linux and Win32
https://github.com/250bpm/nanomsg/issues/73
Best regards.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo,
>
>
> I am working with the aio2 branch of nanomsg (just updated). I have the
>> following repeatable behavior in the performance tests:
>>
>> 1. Both inproc_{lat,thr} assert (at
>> nanomsg/src/transports/inproc/**cinproc.c:99). This happens on both Win32
>> and Linux.
>>
>> 2. Combination {local,remote}_lat works on Linux. My results look
>> reasonable:
>>
>> message size: 1 [B]
>> roundtrip count: 100000
>> average latency: 59.656 [us]
>>
>> However, the same combination fails on Win32; both programs hang and I
>> even have to kill the console for both programs.
>>
>> 3. When running combination {local,remote}_thr, the local_thr side
>> asserts on Linux (at nanomsg/src/transports/tcp/**stcp.c:294). I have not
>> tried yet this combination on Win32.
>>
>> Which of the performance tests are supposed to be running by now? Are my
>> results (both in the numbers I got for case #2 and the assertions for
>> cases #1 and #3) expected?
>>
>
> The state of affairs is that more or less all the functionality is already
> implemented, however, there was almost no testing. So it's still failing
> pretty often. Even the built-in test don't pass fully yet.
>
> It would be great if you could log individual failures into the bug
> tracker.
>
> Martin
>
--
Gonzalo Diethelm
gonzalo.diethelm@xxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
