From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6CEBC37 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:07:02 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmkDAP5+OUtQRFuwX2dsb2JhbACbRRUNCgQWuFiEMwSBZQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,468,1257116400"; d="scan'208";a="42888168" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2009 13:07:02 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NPaqq-00041z-Re; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:07:00 +0000 Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:07:00 +0000 To: Erik Rigtorp Cc: yminsky , caml-list Subject: Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.1/8.0] Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.1/8.0] Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml is broken Message-ID: <20091229120700.GB13675@annexia.org> References: <4B2D2BC1.6020204@msu.edu> <200912200443.57698.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <891bd3390912200547i67c3852dv1c91900018fdea9b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0100,:01 sockets:01 loopback:01 req:98 req:98 2009:98 wrote:01 unix:01 caml-list:01 posix:01 latency:01 latency:01 measurements:01 erik:04 On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:50:36PM +0100, Erik Rigtorp wrote: > Some IPC Benchmarks, Solaris 10 on a quad core Intel Core2 Duo. The > benchmarks are running on a cpuset with 1 core. I measure the time > from sending in one process until the other process receives the > message. So a context switch and the message passing is included in > the measurements. > > Max/Min/Avg > * Pipes: 28205/5973/6259 > * Unix domain sockets: 44256/7748/8153 > * SYSv message queues: 19197/5895/6173 > * Posix message queues: 37399/10965/11303 > * TCP on loopback: 29017/7471/7885 > > So the latency is roughly 10µs for all these solutions. That latency > is pretty high and would be several times the processing time of the > message itself. Are you pinning processes? Without pinning and understanding the corresponding physical architecture of the machine, such tests are pretty much useless. Also - Solaris 10 ...? That boat left a long time ago. You should really be thinking about migrating to modern operating systems run by a company with a future. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat