Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:40:05 +0100 | From | "Olaf van der Spek" <> | Subject | Re: Unix sockets via TCP on localhost: is TCP slower? |
| |
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > I'm already wondering what problems you encounter with TCP performance > on the loopback. I'm used to stress-test network proxies on the loopback
None. It's just a theoretical question.
> for quick tests when I don't want to boot 3 machines, and seeing that it's > easy to connect/accept 100k sessions/s and forward about 20-30 Gbps between > two processes on consumer-grade machines, I'm really doubting that your > applications needs that much out of your database.
Hmm, those numbers look a lot better than the ones Chris Friesen posted. He posted 334 mbyte/s for TCP and 1564 for Unix. That's a 4.7x difference.
> If you're really so sensible to local traffic tunning, you can already > set a very large MTU on your loopback, you can have very large windows > between your applications so that very few ACKs are sent, etc... And > BTW checksums are already not even computed. Loopback *is* fast, there's
That was my initial question. If the performance difference is insignificant, that's fine with me.
> no need to crapify the whole stack with your "switch" to gain 5% more out > of it. > > Anyway, if you can come up with patches which proves all of us wrong > without weakening the code, I'm sure they could be accepted.
I'm sure too, but I won't.
| |