From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rigtorp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA83BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:04:38 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwCAH9EMEvRVdzYkGdsb2JhbACDbpcFPwEBAQEJCQwHEwOpUIFbhSeIUgECAwWBKoIuVgSBZYlM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,436,1257116400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="39174585"
Received: from mail-fx0-f216.google.com ([209.85.220.216])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2009 13:04:38 +0100
Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so5844402fxm.7
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:04:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=1JL5cFgm89Q8gXrg9w+QgEsdA8iOf6TOV2cHA85vPtc=;
        b=H9N8exxFDZIDZGq6VtA9DLrl+1kgONLKFjnzsLfOpancO7qVYUdIRKEWRPDYDXKpoW
         YR2/0YXa7XRTQmbPnziquSZ1guO8grQ9c9xhgGcns2hd6BwstAeupCPD0Ov70zTfV6ip
         I9sxh3LySWPXooVzBUVqovTNI9asYImEb12eQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=byAReXeDy+jNj2YEflZgCWXiF1mckaDg9VUFXBL7FVa8Zl/voSWsCLLivWZpu8ufpv
         skYlj0XT/Dd2Y6XJUeqOkuZGwbcdfYkuRzZWOVvuEwSDwm4VuwilT/V+WRA+/lovM+nY
         w4FqIMg/qH6sAskoVwbf+NxNLGMAiohlNujbs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rigtorp@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.132.204 with SMTP id c12mr11304798fat.80.1261483477726; 
	Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:04:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a57051ba0912211450q35af99a2vbe64c3a255cc2d4d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B2D2BC1.6020204@msu.edu>
	 <200912200443.57698.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
	 <a57051ba0912200421w72837f94j2689dab1c2cf4dcb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <891bd3390912200547i67c3852dv1c91900018fdea9b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a57051ba0912211450q35af99a2vbe64c3a255cc2d4d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:04:37 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 85d1f91970bbb430
Message-ID: <a57051ba0912220404t2a9d22fp2d9e66fa6f9bb6b@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.1/8.0] Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 
	10.1/8.0] Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml is broken
From: Erik Rigtorp <erik@rigtorp.com>
To: yminsky <yminsky@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam: no; 0.06; ocaml:01 sockets:01 loopback:01 req:98 req:98 2009:98 50,:98 shm:98 utilizes:98 shm:98 wrote:01 unix:01 caml-list:01 posix:01 latency:01 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 23:50, Erik Rigtorp <erik@rigtorp.com> 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 10=C2=B5s for all these solutions. That latency
> is pretty high and would be several times the processing time of the
> message itself.

Some more benchmarks:

Max/Min/Avg
* Spinlocking shm: 50897/403/761  (This one utilizes multiple cores,
since one core is just burning while waiting for data)
* Pthreads mutex shm: 27582/5246/6577

Forgot to say that all measurements are in nanoseconds.

Erik