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.
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.