Browse thread
Re: OCaml is broken
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2009-12-29 (12:07) |
From: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
Subject: | Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.1/8.0] Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.1/8.0] Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml is broken |
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