Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-20 07:58:21

Rene Rivera wrote:


> This means that since I'm writing my own router I need the best
> performance I can get. But to give some minimal concrete numbers...
> Given a single gigabit line, a minimal example as a server is likely
> going to have multiple lines, and the most favorable situation of
> handling full 64K UDP packets one would need to handle about 1500
> messages a second (or 2/3 of a millisecond per message). But in
> practice it would have to be faster than that. This means minimizing
> the most expensive steps, i.e. memory allocations.
> Currently AFAICT in order to use the async operations asio requires a
> model which allocates a new handler for each message received. This
> might be fine for many situations where those handlers will change
> from message to message. But for my use case I have only one handler
> that
> needs to get called for *any* message that comes in. In the asio case
> it means that for each message I received it would: remove the
> handler from the demuxer map, call the handler, which would do my
> custom parsing and routing, and push a new async_receive of myself
> (which creates a new handler object and inserts it again into the
> demux map). This is clearly suboptimal, and will result in
> considerable performance degradation. To refer to some concrete code,
> one can look at the Daytime.6 tutorial
> which does basically that procedure.

Two things come to mind...

1. What inefficiencies are inherent to the design, and what are simply an
implementation detail, and


> Did you try to use the library?
> No.

It'd probably be helpful if you create a simple throughput test and post the
results so that there is a clear target for Asio to match or exceed. This
will also validate your objections as they currently seem to be based on
intuition. :-)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at