[nanomsg] Re: ReqRep high performance
- From: junyi sun <ccnusjy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:33:15 +0800
what is the pattern do you use in your node.js wrapper test?
If you use PUB/SUB or PUSH/PULL, it is expected.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Bent Cardan <bent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I'm capping out at around 140,000 msg/s
>
> that's with my little javascript wrapper,
> https://github.com/reqshark/nanomsg.iojs
>
> on my laptop, msg latency below measured in JavaScript Date.now()
> milliseconds
>
> ✘-130 *bent**@**quad* */Users/bent/nmsg/nanomsg.iojs * [*master*|● 1✚ 4]
>
> 02:23 $ node v8
>
> msg count: 10000, msg latency: 108
>
> msg count: 20000, msg latency: 192
>
> msg count: 30000, msg latency: 288
>
> msg count: 40000, msg latency: 349
>
> msg count: 50000, msg latency: 413
>
> msg count: 60000, msg latency: 496
>
> msg count: 70000, msg latency: 549
>
> msg count: 80000, msg latency: 606
>
> msg count: 90000, msg latency: 701
>
> msg count: 100000, msg latency: 752
>
> msg count: 110000, msg latency: 848
>
> msg count: 120000, msg latency: 904
>
> msg count: 130000, msg latency: 956
>
> msg count: 140000, msg latency: 1056
>
> msg count: 150000, msg latency: 1117
>
> msg count: 160000, msg latency: 1173
>
> msg count: 170000, msg latency: 1254
>
> msg count: 180000, msg latency: 1322
>
> msg count: 190000, msg latency: 1399
>
> msg count: 200000, msg latency: 1451
>
> msg count: 210000, msg latency: 1506
>
> msg count: 220000, msg latency: 1582
>
> msg count: 230000, msg latency: 1661
>
> msg count: 240000, msg latency: 1709
>
> msg count: 250000, msg latency: 1786
>
> msg count: 260000, msg latency: 1834
>
> msg count: 270000, msg latency: 1947
>
> msg count: 280000, msg latency: 1994
>
> msg count: 290000, msg latency: 2043
>
> msg count: 300000, msg latency: 2132
>
> msg count: 310000, msg latency: 2183
>
> msg count: 320000, msg latency: 2232
>
> msg count: 330000, msg latency: 2316
>
> msg count: 340000, msg latency: 2370
>
> msg count: 350000, msg latency: 2449
>
> ^C
>
> ✘-130 *bent**@**quad* */Users/bent/nmsg/nanomsg.iojs * [*master*|● 1✚ 4]
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:45 AM, junyi sun <ccnusjy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I think 50000 msg/s is good enough. I used to make performance test on
>> Redis and memcached. Redis can reach 72000 msg/s, memcached can reach 25000
>> msg/s.
>>
>> The speed of request/reply pattern is limited by the round trip cost of
>> TCP. If we want much higher qps, I think we should use asynchronous
>> pattern, in which the users can register a callback function for request
>> and pick the corresponding response when it arrived.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Pierre Salmon <
>> pierre.salmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> For information, I already implemented this example and i obtained only
>>> 50000 msg/s.
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/20/2015 03:37 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>>>> socket used by the worker. That means you have to save the header and
>>>> restore it — the device() routine has this logic, but you need to copy that
>>>> logic as appropriate, rat
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Bent Cardan
> nothingsatisfies.com | bent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Other related posts:
