4 ms·
Is it just me, or do these performance numbers lead anyone else to believe that JeroMQ is more performant than ZeroMQ? I can probably believe that running on a
by GilbertErik 13y ago
Is it just me, or do these performance numbers lead anyone else to believe that JeroMQ is more performant than ZeroMQ? I can probably believe that running on a modern JVM would buy you a little bit of an advantage, but these numbers seem like JeroMQ is roughly 20% faster. (I'm reading lower latency and higher 100K msgs/sec)
- marktangotango 13y agoJNI is not considered to be a performant solution. Copying bytes across the jvm/c boundary is expensive. Depending on how the bindings are implemented (direct vs undirect ByteBuffers for example) you could easily see drastic differences in performance at high through put.
- benmmurphy 13y agoThe interesting thing was the comparison looked like pure c++ vs java. GC can give you better throughput than a naive memory allocator if you are willing to deal with the unpredictable pauses.
- mey 13y agoBut for a Java developer looking to make use of ZeroMQ, that comparison wouldn't make sense as they already are taking on the burden of the JVM.
- capkutay 13y agoOne possibility is that in the JeroMQ test, they allocated enough memory for the JVM so that GC wasn't as expensive as explicitly dealing with memory management in the C++ test.