Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Performance (at least compared to nanomsg) #56

Open
dumblob opened this issue Nov 23, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Performance (at least compared to nanomsg) #56

dumblob opened this issue Nov 23, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Comments

@dumblob
Copy link

dumblob commented Nov 23, 2021

I wonder how this performs compared to nanomsg (zero-copy, very minimal, fully scalable, ...).

Could you do some measurements (at least preliminary with trade-offs to get a general sense) and publish them ideally right in the readme?

Rationale

I consider nanomsg as a baseline, so that's why I'm not asking about comparison to other messaging/IPC products (there are many good ones but nanomsg is easy to measure against due to its stability, easy setup, nice perf package, and leading performance).

@Squadrick Squadrick added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Nov 23, 2021
@Squadrick
Copy link
Owner

@dumblob Thanks for creating this ticket. Your rationale makes sense, I'll start adding comparison benchmarks soon. I've found a couple of other libraries that might be good reference points for performance, listing them here:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants