Share Memory

Requests or suggestions for new features
Site Admin
Posts: 7597
Joined: 14 Dec 2012, 00:25

Re: Share Memory

Post by coppelia » 22 May 2017, 13:07

Wow, great!

Looking forward to the final version!!


Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Feb 2015, 11:50

Re: Share Memory

Post by benjamin » 30 May 2017, 16:26

I finished the testing on Linux and Windows. Can you give it a try internally to check if it's ok with your test environments?

I made a benchmark app with an associated scene to assess the benefits from using shared memory (available in the repo), and the results are a bit surprising. On Linux, the computed real time factor (expected duration/actual duration) increases from 0.21 to 0.98 which is great but on Windows I get almost the results (0.85 +/- 0.02) regardless of the version used. I use the same computer in both cases (dual boot).

Do you think there might be an implementation issue for the TCP version under Linux to have such a low value compared to Windows? I would have imagined the opposite.

Edit: the macOS version is okay too. I had to increase the amount of data transferred to see the benefits of the shared memory. With the same benchmark as above I got a real time factor of 0.97 in both cases. With the increased data size, the real time factor went from 0.52 in TCP to 0.87 with shared memory. I had to run the tests on a different machine (obviously) so we can't strictly compare the macOS results to the ones on Linux and Windows.

Post Reply