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://listarchives.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.