Re: [boost] Interesting Article for using Boost for Remote CallFramework

From: Jarl Lindrud (jlindrud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-13 00:30:47

Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.aau.dk> writes:

> 
> 
> "Mottengte, Rajeev Kumar" <Rajeev.Mottengte <at> ipc.com> wrote in message
> news:1D6EDDB3E43F3B40BC089CCFEE99DB7D01855D92 <at> exnanycmbx1.corp.root.ipc.
com...
> > Hi
> >
> >         An interesting article on using boost for remote call framework.
> >
> >
> >         http://www.codeproject.com/threads/RMI_For_Cpp.asp
> >
> 
> Interesting indeed.
> 
> The author claims that boost.serialization is 5 times slower than some of
> his other libs. Is that a know problem with boost.serialization or is the
> claim wrong?
> 
> -Thorsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
> 

Hi, 

What I meant was that the total performance of my framework, measured in 
messages passed per second, was around 5 times slower when using Boost.
Serialization, than when using a similar serialization framework that I 
developed myself. 

>From the profiling I did I'm pretty sure that the performance problems had to do 
with the construction/destruction of the archive classes, and probably had 
nothing to do with the actual serialization.

The tests I ran were remote method invocations over a loopback TCP connection, 
to a thread in the same process. Each invocation involves creating 4 archive 
objects (passing args in and out on both client and server ends), and with 
Boost.Serialization I couldn't get beyond 1000 invocations/sec, while getting 
almost 5000 when using my own serialization framework.

Jarl.