> I'm using disruptor.net port of disruptor. I have significant perfomance
> problems and I don't know why:

> - am I just measure perfomance wrong way?
> - am I use disruptor wrong way?
> - .net port of disruptor is so bad?

> Probably someone can help me. In my real application I've measured that
> using Disruptor I spent ~50 microseconds in average to deliver one message.
> The code below is very simplified version of my real application. The
> difference is that in real appplication i have several consumers and I do
> pass "reference" instead of "int".

> However even simplified test below produced such output:

> average = 4 minimum = 3 0-5 = 3429, 5-10 = 428, 10-30 = 848, >30 = 295

> 4 microsecond for Disruptor is HUGE delay. I expect it always to be much
> less than 1 microsecond. Waiting for suggestions and hints (also probably
> someone can test the same code with Java version, it would be easy to port
> I assume :)

> using System;
> using System.Diagnostics;
> using System.Linq;
> using System.Threading;
> using System.Threading.Tasks;
> using Disruptor;
> using Disruptor.Dsl;

> namespace DisruptorTest
> {
>     public sealed class ValueEntry
>     {
>         public int Value { get; set; }

>         public ValueEntry()
>         {
>             //   Console.WriteLine("New ValueEntry created");
>         }
>     }

>     public class ValueAdditionHandler : IEventHandler<ValueEntry>
>     {
>         public void OnNext(ValueEntry data, long sequence, bool endOfBatch)
>         {

>             long microseconds = Program.sw[data.Value].ElapsedTicks /
> (Stopwatch.Frequency / (1000L * 1000L));
>             Program.results[data.Value] = microseconds;
>         }
>     }

>     class Program
>     {
>         public const int length = 10000;
>         public static Stopwatch[] sw = new Stopwatch[length];
>         public static long[] results = new long[length];

>         private static readonly int _ringSize = 1048576;  // Must be
> multiple of 2

>         public static int factorial;

>         static void Main(string[] args)
>         {
>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>             {
>                 sw[i] = Stopwatch.StartNew();
>             }

>             var disruptor = new Disruptor.Dsl.Disruptor<ValueEntry>(() =>
> new ValueEntry(), _ringSize, TaskScheduler.Default);

>             disruptor.HandleEventsWith(new ValueAdditionHandler());

>             var ringBuffer = disruptor.Start();

>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>             {
>                 var valueToSet = i;
>                 long sequenceNo = ringBuffer.Next();

>                 ValueEntry entry = ringBuffer[sequenceNo];

>                 entry.Value = valueToSet;

>                 sw[i].Restart();
>                 ringBuffer.Publish(sequenceNo);

>                 // let's simulate some work
>                 factorial = 1;
>                 for (int j = 1; j < 100000; j++)
>                 {
>                     factorial *= j;
>                 }
>             }

>             // be absolutely sure that all events are delivered
>             Thread.Sleep(1000);

>             long average = 0;
>             long minimum = 10000000000;
>             int firstFive = 0;
>             int fiveToTen = 0;
>             int tenToThirty = 0;
>             int moreThenThirty = 0;

>             // count only second half because first half might be too slow
> by some "start-up" reason
>             for (int i = length / 2; i < length; i++)
>             {
>                 average += results[i];
>                 if (results[i] < minimum)
>                 {
>                     minimum = results[i];
>                 }
>                 if (results[i] < 5)
>                 {
>                     firstFive++;
>                 }
>                 else if (results[i] < 10)
>                 {
>                     fiveToTen++;
>                 }
>                 else if (results[i] < 30)
>                 {
>                     tenToThirty++;
>                 }
>                 else
>                 {
>                     moreThenThirty++;
>                 }
>             }
>             average /= (length - 100);
>             Console.WriteLine("average = {0} minimum = {1} 0-5 = {2}, 5-10
> = {3}, 10-30 = {4}, >30 = {5}", average, minimum, firstFive, fiveToTen,
> tenToThirty, moreThenThirty);
>         }
>     }
> }

> average /= (length - 100);
> should be
> average /= (length / 2)

> Everything else is still correct.

> New output (average a little bit more):
> average = 6 minimum = 3 0-5 = 4040, 5-10 = 625, 10-30 = 191, >30 = 144

> On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:51:18 AM UTC+4, Oleg Vazhnev wrote:

>> I'm using disruptor.net port of disruptor. I have significant perfomance problems and I don't know why:

>> - am I just measure perfomance wrong way?
>> - am I use disruptor wrong way?
>> - .net port of disruptor is so bad?

>> Probably someone can help me. In my real application I've measured that using Disruptor I spent ~50 microseconds in average to deliver one message.
>> The code below is very simplified version of my real application. The difference is that in real appplication i have several consumers and I do pass "reference" instead of "int".

>> However even simplified test below produced such output:

>> average = 4 minimum = 3 0-5 = 3429, 5-10 = 428, 10-30 = 848, >30 = 295

>> 4 microsecond for Disruptor is HUGE delay. I expect it always to be much less than 1 microsecond. Waiting for suggestions and hints (also probably someone can test the same code with Java version, it would be easy to port I assume :)

>> using System;
>> using System.Diagnostics;
>> using System.Linq;
>> using System.Threading;
>> using System.Threading.Tasks;
>> using Disruptor;
>> using Disruptor.Dsl;

>> namespace DisruptorTest
>> {
>>     public sealed class ValueEntry
>>     {
>>         public int Value { get; set; }

>>         public ValueEntry()
>>         {
>>             //   Console.WriteLine("New ValueEntry created");
>>         }
>>     }

>>     public class ValueAdditionHandler : IEventHandler<ValueEntry>
>>     {
>>         public void OnNext(ValueEntry data, long sequence, bool endOfBatch)
>>         {

>>             long microseconds = Program.sw[data.Value].ElapsedTicks / (Stopwatch.Frequency / (1000L * 1000L));
>>             Program.results[data.Value] = microseconds;
>>         }
>>     }

>>     class Program
>>     {
>>         public const int length = 10000;
>>         public static Stopwatch[] sw = new Stopwatch[length];
>>         public static long[] results = new long[length];

>>         private static readonly int _ringSize = 1048576;  // Must be multiple of 2

>>         public static int factorial;

>>         static void Main(string[] args)
>>         {
>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>             {
>>                 sw[i] = Stopwatch.StartNew();
>>             }

>>             var disruptor = new Disruptor.Dsl.Disruptor<ValueEntry>(() => new ValueEntry(), _ringSize, TaskScheduler.Default);

>>             disruptor.HandleEventsWith(new ValueAdditionHandler());

>>             var ringBuffer = disruptor.Start();

>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>             {
>>                 var valueToSet = i;
>>                 long sequenceNo = ringBuffer.Next();

>>                 ValueEntry entry = ringBuffer[sequenceNo];

>>                 entry.Value = valueToSet;

>>                 sw[i].Restart();
>>                 ringBuffer.Publish(sequenceNo);

>>                 // let's simulate some work
>>                 factorial = 1;
>>                 for (int j = 1; j < 100000; j++)
>>                 {
>>                     factorial *= j;
>>                 }
>>             }

>>             // be absolutely sure that all events are delivered
>>             Thread.Sleep(1000);

>>             long average = 0;
>>             long minimum = 10000000000;
>>             int firstFive = 0;
>>             int fiveToTen = 0;
>>             int tenToThirty = 0;
>>             int moreThenThirty = 0;

>>             // count only second half because first half might be too slow by some "start-up" reason
>>             for (int i = length / 2; i < length; i++)
>>             {
>>                 average += results[i];
>>                 if (results[i] < minimum)
>>                 {
>>                     minimum = results[i];
>>                 }
>>                 if (results[i] < 5)
>>                 {
>>                     firstFive++;
>>                 }
>>                 else if (results[i] < 10)
>>                 {
>>                     fiveToTen++;
>>                 }
>>                 else if (results[i] < 30)
>>                 {
>>                     tenToThirty++;
>>                 }
>>                 else
>>                 {
>>                     moreThenThirty++;
>>                 }
>>             }
>>             average /= (length - 100);
>>             Console.WriteLine("average = {0} minimum = {1} 0-5 = {2}, 5-10 = {3}, 10-30 = {4}, >30 = {5}", average, minimum, firstFive, fiveToTen, tenToThirty, moreThenThirty);
>>         }
>>     }
>> }

> --

> Could you describe the hardware used?
> Have you tried to run the latency perf test in the perf test suite, in
> release mode, without debugger attached?

> Olivier

> On 16 nov. 2012, at 07:56, Oleg Vazhnev <ovaz...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:

> Bug in code

> average /= (length - 100);
> should be
> average /= (length / 2)

> Everything else is still correct.

> New output (average a little bit more):
> average = 6 minimum = 3 0-5 = 4040, 5-10 = 625, 10-30 = 191, >30 = 144

> On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:51:18 AM UTC+4, Oleg Vazhnev wrote:

>> I'm using disruptor.net port of disruptor. I have significant perfomance
>> problems and I don't know why:

>> - am I just measure perfomance wrong way?
>> - am I use disruptor wrong way?
>> - .net port of disruptor is so bad?

>> Probably someone can help me. In my real application I've measured that
>> using Disruptor I spent ~50 microseconds in average to deliver one message.
>> The code below is very simplified version of my real application. The
>> difference is that in real appplication i have several consumers and I do
>> pass "reference" instead of "int".

>> However even simplified test below produced such output:

>> average = 4 minimum = 3 0-5 = 3429, 5-10 = 428, 10-30 = 848, >30 = 295

>> 4 microsecond for Disruptor is HUGE delay. I expect it always to be much
>> less than 1 microsecond. Waiting for suggestions and hints (also probably
>> someone can test the same code with Java version, it would be easy to port
>> I assume :)

>> using System;
>> using System.Diagnostics;
>> using System.Linq;
>> using System.Threading;
>> using System.Threading.Tasks;
>> using Disruptor;
>> using Disruptor.Dsl;

>> namespace DisruptorTest
>> {
>>     public sealed class ValueEntry
>>     {
>>         public int Value { get; set; }

>>         public ValueEntry()
>>         {
>>             //   Console.WriteLine("New ValueEntry created");
>>         }
>>     }

>>     public class ValueAdditionHandler : IEventHandler<ValueEntry>
>>     {
>>         public void OnNext(ValueEntry data, long sequence, bool
>> endOfBatch)
>>         {

>>             long microseconds = Program.sw[data.Value].ElapsedTicks /
>> (Stopwatch.Frequency / (1000L * 1000L));
>>             Program.results[data.Value] = microseconds;
>>         }
>>     }

>>     class Program
>>     {
>>         public const int length = 10000;
>>         public static Stopwatch[] sw = new Stopwatch[length];
>>         public static long[] results = new long[length];

>>         private static readonly int _ringSize = 1048576;  // Must be
>> multiple of 2

>>         public static int factorial;

>>         static void Main(string[] args)
>>         {
>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>             {
>>                 sw[i] = Stopwatch.StartNew();
>>             }

>>             var disruptor = new Disruptor.Dsl.Disruptor<ValueEntry>(() =>
>> new ValueEntry(), _ringSize, TaskScheduler.Default);

>>             disruptor.HandleEventsWith(new ValueAdditionHandler());

>>             var ringBuffer = disruptor.Start();

>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>             {
>>                 var valueToSet = i;
>>                 long sequenceNo = ringBuffer.Next();

>>                 ValueEntry entry = ringBuffer[sequenceNo];

>>                 entry.Value = valueToSet;

>>                 sw[i].Restart();
>>                 ringBuffer.Publish(sequenceNo);

>>                 // let's simulate some work
>>                 factorial = 1;
>>                 for (int j = 1; j < 100000; j++)
>>                 {
>>                     factorial *= j;
>>                 }
>>             }

>>             // be absolutely sure that all events are delivered
>>             Thread.Sleep(1000);

>>             long average = 0;
>>             long minimum = 10000000000;
>>             int firstFive = 0;
>>             int fiveToTen = 0;
>>             int tenToThirty = 0;
>>             int moreThenThirty = 0;

>>             // count only second half because first half might be too
>> slow by some "start-up" reason
>>             for (int i = length / 2; i < length; i++)
>>             {
>>                 average += results[i];
>>                 if (results[i] < minimum)
>>                 {
>>                     minimum = results[i];
>>                 }
>>                 if (results[i] < 5)
>>                 {
>>                     firstFive++;
>>                 }
>>                 else if (results[i] < 10)
>>                 {
>>                     fiveToTen++;
>>                 }
>>                 else if (results[i] < 30)
>>                 {
>>                     tenToThirty++;
>>                 }
>>                 else
>>                 {
>>                     moreThenThirty++;
>>                 }
>>             }
>>             average /= (length - 100);
>>             Console.WriteLine("average = {0} minimum = {1} 0-5 = {2},
>> 5-10 = {3}, 10-30 = {4}, >30 = {5}", average, minimum, firstFive,
>> fiveToTen, tenToThirty, moreThenThirty);
>>         }
>>     }
>> }

>>  --

> The results are for my laptop Lenovo W530 (using ivy bridge processor).

> I've just also tried to run my test on HP DL360p Gen8 (2 * Xeon E5-2640),
> the results are:
> average = 4 minimum = 4 0-5 = 2579, 5-10 = 2388, 10-30 = 32, >30 = 1

> This is in Release build with no debugger attached.
> No I didn't tried to run perf tests, probaly I should.
> Do you think that my test is correct and the problem is with hardware or
> sotware?

> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:39:11 PM UTC+4, Olivier Deheurles wrote:

>> Could you describe the hardware used?
>> Have you tried to run the latency perf test in the perf test suite, in
>> release mode, without debugger attached?

>> Olivier

>> On 16 nov. 2012, at 07:56, Oleg Vazhnev <ovaz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Bug in code

>> average /= (length - 100);
>> should be
>> average /= (length / 2)

>> Everything else is still correct.

>> New output (average a little bit more):
>> average = 6 minimum = 3 0-5 = 4040, 5-10 = 625, 10-30 = 191, >30 = 144

>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:51:18 AM UTC+4, Oleg Vazhnev wrote:

>>> I'm using disruptor.net port of disruptor. I have significant
>>> perfomance problems and I don't know why:

>>> - am I just measure perfomance wrong way?
>>> - am I use disruptor wrong way?
>>> - .net port of disruptor is so bad?

>>> Probably someone can help me. In my real application I've measured that
>>> using Disruptor I spent ~50 microseconds in average to deliver one message.
>>> The code below is very simplified version of my real application. The
>>> difference is that in real appplication i have several consumers and I do
>>> pass "reference" instead of "int".

>>> However even simplified test below produced such output:

>>> average = 4 minimum = 3 0-5 = 3429, 5-10 = 428, 10-30 = 848, >30 = 295

>>> 4 microsecond for Disruptor is HUGE delay. I expect it always to be much
>>> less than 1 microsecond. Waiting for suggestions and hints (also probably
>>> someone can test the same code with Java version, it would be easy to port
>>> I assume :)

>>> using System;
>>> using System.Diagnostics;
>>> using System.Linq;
>>> using System.Threading;
>>> using System.Threading.Tasks;
>>> using Disruptor;
>>> using Disruptor.Dsl;

>>> namespace DisruptorTest
>>> {
>>>     public sealed class ValueEntry
>>>     {
>>>         public int Value { get; set; }

>>>         public ValueEntry()
>>>         {
>>>             //   Console.WriteLine("New ValueEntry created");
>>>         }
>>>     }

>>>     public class ValueAdditionHandler : IEventHandler<ValueEntry>
>>>     {
>>>         public void OnNext(ValueEntry data, long sequence, bool
>>> endOfBatch)
>>>         {

>>>             long microseconds = Program.sw[data.Value].ElapsedTicks /
>>> (Stopwatch.Frequency / (1000L * 1000L));
>>>             Program.results[data.Value] = microseconds;
>>>         }
>>>     }

>>>     class Program
>>>     {
>>>         public const int length = 10000;
>>>         public static Stopwatch[] sw = new Stopwatch[length];
>>>         public static long[] results = new long[length];

>>>         private static readonly int _ringSize = 1048576;  // Must be
>>> multiple of 2

>>>         public static int factorial;

>>>         static void Main(string[] args)
>>>         {
>>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>>             {
>>>                 sw[i] = Stopwatch.StartNew();
>>>             }

>>>             var disruptor = new Disruptor.Dsl.Disruptor<ValueEntry>(()
>>> => new ValueEntry(), _ringSize, TaskScheduler.Default);

>>>             disruptor.HandleEventsWith(new ValueAdditionHandler());

>>>             var ringBuffer = disruptor.Start();

>>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>>             {
>>>                 var valueToSet = i;
>>>                 long sequenceNo = ringBuffer.Next();

>>>                 ValueEntry entry = ringBuffer[sequenceNo];

>>>                 entry.Value = valueToSet;

>>>                 sw[i].Restart();
>>>                 ringBuffer.Publish(sequenceNo);

>>>                 // let's simulate some work
>>>                 factorial = 1;
>>>                 for (int j = 1; j < 100000; j++)
>>>                 {
>>>                     factorial *= j;
>>>                 }
>>>             }

>>>             // be absolutely sure that all events are delivered
>>>             Thread.Sleep(1000);

>>>             long average = 0;
>>>             long minimum = 10000000000;
>>>             int firstFive = 0;
>>>             int fiveToTen = 0;
>>>             int tenToThirty = 0;
>>>             int moreThenThirty = 0;

>>>             // count only second half because first half might be too
>>> slow by some "start-up" reason
>>>             for (int i = length / 2; i < length; i++)
>>>             {
>>>                 average += results[i];
>>>                 if (results[i] < minimum)
>>>                 {
>>>                     minimum = results[i];
>>>                 }
>>>                 if (results[i] < 5)
>>>                 {
>>>                     firstFive++;
>>>                 }
>>>                 else if (results[i] < 10)
>>>                 {
>>>                     fiveToTen++;
>>>                 }
>>>                 else if (results[i] < 30)
>>>                 {
>>>                     tenToThirty++;
>>>                 }
>>>                 else
>>>                 {
>>>                     moreThenThirty++;
>>>                 }
>>>             }
>>>             average /= (length - 100);
>>>             Console.WriteLine("average = {0} minimum = {1} 0-5 = {2},
>>> 5-10 = {3}, 10-30 = {4}, >30 = {5}", average, minimum, firstFive,
>>> fiveToTen, tenToThirty, moreThenThirty);
>>>         }

> E:\Oleg\documents\Disruptor-perfRunner-1.0.0.0>Disruptor.PerfTests.exe 0 0 1
> Name: OLEGPC
> Manufacturer: LENOVO
> Model: 2436CTO

> Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8 Pro with Media Center
>  - Version: 6.2.9200
>  - ServicePack: 0

> Number of Processors: 1
>  - Name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3720QM CPU @ 2.60GHz
>  - Description: Intel64 Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9
>  - ClockSpeed: 2601 Mhz
>  - Number of cores: 4
>  - Number of logical processors: 8
>  - Hyperthreading: ON

> Memory: 15977 MBytes
>  - L1Cache: 64 KBytes
>  - L2Cache: 256 KBytes
>  - L3Cache: 6144 KBytes

> Scenario=All, Implementation=All, Runs=1
> UniCast1P1CDisruptorPerfTest:24 125 452
> UniCast1P1CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:3 076 923
> UniCast1P1CDataflowPerfTest:6 814 310
> MultiCast1P3CDisruptorPerfTest:16 583 747
> MultiCast1P3CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:993 048
> MultiCast1P3CDataflowPerfTest:
> Pipeline3StepDisruptorPerfTest:26 560 424
> Pipeline3StepBlockingCollectionPerfTest:1 136 363
> Pipeline3StepDataflowPerfTest:1 474 926
> Sequencer3P1CDisruptorPerfTest:15 612 802
> Sequencer3P1CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:2 671 415
> Sequencer3P1CDataflowPerfTest:
> DiamondPath1P3CDisruptorPerfTest:26 455 026
> DiamondPath1P3CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:1 231 527
> DiamondPath1P3CDataflowPerfTest:883 392
> Pipeline3StepLatencyDisruptorPerfTest : Histogram{min=-21, max=547745, mean=137.
> 69, 99%=128, 99.99%=131072, [2=15673064, 4=0, 8=0, 16=0, 32=0, 64=0, 128=4202065
> , 256=10405, 512=8974, 1024=8795, 2048=11327, 4096=12602, 8192=17833, 16384=2459
> 1, 32768=11927, 65536=7315, 131072=9802, 262144=553, 524288=688, 1048576=59, 209
> 7152=0, 4194304=0, 8388608=0, 16777216=0, 33554432=0, 67108864=0, 134217728=0, 2
> 68435456=0, 536870912=0, 1073741824=0, 9223372036854775807=0]}
> 2       15673064
> 4       0
> 8       0
> 16      0
> 32      0
> 64      0
> 128     4202065
> 256     10405
> 512     8974
> 1024    8795
> 2048    11327
> 4096    12602
> 8192    17833
> 16384   24591
> 32768   11927
> 65536   7315
> 131072  9802
> 262144  553
> 524288  688
> 1048576 59
> 2097152 0
> 4194304 0
> 8388608 0
> 16777216        0
> 33554432        0
> 67108864        0
> 134217728       0
> 268435456       0
> 536870912       0
> 1073741824      0
> 9223372036854775807     0
> Pipeline3StepLatencyBlockingCollectionPerfTest : Histogram{min=505, max=1877227,
>  mean=1822.45, 99%=4096, 99.99%=524288, [2=0, 4=0, 8=0, 16=0, 32=0, 64=0, 128=0,
>  256=0, 512=29626, 1024=675878, 2048=278179, 4096=6773, 8192=1650, 16384=1129, 3
> 2768=1225, 65536=1220, 131072=2286, 262144=1592, 524288=422, 1048576=10, 2097152
> =10, 4194304=0, 8388608=0, 16777216=0, 33554432=0, 67108864=0, 134217728=0, 2684
> 35456=0, 536870912=0, 1073741824=0, 9223372036854775807=0]}
> 2       0
> 4       0
> 8       0
> 16      0
> 32      0
> 64      0
> 128     0
> 256     0
> 512     29626
> 1024    675878
> 2048    278179
> 4096    6773
> 8192    1650
> 16384   1129
> 32768   1225
> 65536   1220
> 131072  2286
> 262144  1592
> 524288  422
> 1048576 10
> 2097152 10
> 4194304 0
> 8388608 0
> 16777216        0
> 33554432        0
> 67108864        0
> 134217728       0
> 268435456       0
> 536870912       0
> 1073741824      0
> 9223372036854775807     0
> Pipeline3StepLatencyDataflowPerfTest : Histogram{min=9223372036854775807, max=0,
>  mean=0, 99%=0, 99.99%=0, [2=0, 4=0, 8=0, 16=0, 32=0, 64=0, 128=0, 256=0, 512=0,
>  1024=0, 2048=0, 4096=0, 8192=0, 16384=0, 32768=0, 65536=0, 131072=0, 262144=0,
> 524288=0, 1048576=0, 2097152=0, 4194304=0, 8388608=0, 16777216=0, 33554432=0, 67
> 108864=0, 134217728=0, 268435456=0, 536870912=0, 1073741824=0, 92233720368547758
> 07=0]}
> 2       0
> 4       0
> 8       0
> 16      0
> 32      0
> 64      0
> 128     0
> 256     0
> 512     0
> 1024    0
> 2048    0
> 4096    0
> 8192    0
> 16384   0
> 32768   0
> 65536   0
> 131072  0
> 262144  0
> 524288  0
> 1048576 0
> 2097152 0
> 4194304 0
> 8388608 0
> 16777216        0
> 33554432        0
> 67108864        0
> 134217728       0
> 268435456       0
> 536870912       0
> 1073741824      0
> 9223372036854775807     0
> UniCast1P1CBatchDisruptorPerfTest:120 627 261
> UniCast1P1CBatchBlockingCollectionPerfTest:2 861 230
> UniCast1P1CBatchDataflowPerfTest:8 080 808

> On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:03:01 PM UTC+4, Oleg Vazhnev wrote:

>> The results are for my laptop Lenovo W530 (using ivy bridge processor).

>> I've just also tried to run my test on HP DL360p Gen8 (2 * Xeon E5-2640), the results are:
>> average = 4 minimum = 4 0-5 = 2579, 5-10 = 2388, 10-30 = 32, >30 = 1

>> This is in Release build with no debugger attached.
>> No I didn't tried to run perf tests, probaly I should.
>> Do you think that my test is correct and the problem is with hardware or sotware?

>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:39:11 PM UTC+4, Olivier Deheurles wrote:

>>> Could you describe the hardware used?
>>> Have you tried to run the latency perf test in the perf test suite, in release mode, without debugger attached?

>>> Olivier

>>> On 16 nov. 2012, at 07:56, Oleg Vazhnev <ovaz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Bug in code

>>>> average /= (length - 100);
>>>> should be
>>>> average /= (length / 2)

>>>> Everything else is still correct.

>>>> New output (average a little bit more):
>>>> average = 6 minimum = 3 0-5 = 4040, 5-10 = 625, 10-30 = 191, >30 = 144

>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:51:18 AM UTC+4, Oleg Vazhnev wrote:

>>>>> I'm using disruptor.net port of disruptor. I have significant perfomance problems and I don't know why:

>>>>> - am I just measure perfomance wrong way?
>>>>> - am I use disruptor wrong way?
>>>>> - .net port of disruptor is so bad?

>>>>> Probably someone can help me. In my real application I've measured that using Disruptor I spent ~50 microseconds in average to deliver one message..
>>>>> The code below is very simplified version of my real application. The difference is that in real appplication i have several consumers and I do pass "reference" instead of "int".

>>>>> However even simplified test below produced such output:

>>>>> average = 4 minimum = 3 0-5 = 3429, 5-10 = 428, 10-30 = 848, >30 = 295

>>>>> 4 microsecond for Disruptor is HUGE delay. I expect it always to be much less than 1 microsecond. Waiting for suggestions and hints (also probably someone can test the same code with Java version, it would be easy to port I assume :)

>>>>> using System;
>>>>> using System.Diagnostics;
>>>>> using System.Linq;
>>>>> using System.Threading;
>>>>> using System.Threading.Tasks;
>>>>> using Disruptor;
>>>>> using Disruptor.Dsl;

>>>>> namespace DisruptorTest
>>>>> {
>>>>>     public sealed class ValueEntry
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         public int Value { get; set; }

>>>>>         public ValueEntry()
>>>>>         {
>>>>>             //   Console.WriteLine("New ValueEntry created");
>>>>>         }
>>>>>     }

>>>>>     public class ValueAdditionHandler : IEventHandler<ValueEntry>
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         public void OnNext(ValueEntry data, long sequence, bool endOfBatch)
>>>>>         {

>>>>>             long microseconds = Program.sw[data.Value].ElapsedTicks / (Stopwatch.Frequency / (1000L * 1000L));
>>>>>             Program.results[data.Value] = microseconds;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>     }

>>>>>     class Program
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         public const int length = 10000;
>>>>>         public static Stopwatch[] sw = new Stopwatch[length];
>>>>>         public static long[] results = new long[length];

>>>>>         private static readonly int _ringSize = 1048576;  // Must be multiple of 2

>>>>>         public static int factorial;

>>>>>         static void Main(string[] args)
>>>>>         {
>>>>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>>>>             {
>>>>>                 sw[i] = Stopwatch.StartNew();
>>>>>             }

>>>>>             var disruptor = new Disruptor.Dsl.Disruptor<ValueEntry>(() => new ValueEntry(), _ringSize, TaskScheduler.Default);

>>>>>             disruptor.HandleEventsWith(new ValueAdditionHandler());

>>>>>             var ringBuffer = disruptor.Start();

>>>>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>>>>             {
>>>>>                 var valueToSet = i;
>>>>>                 long sequenceNo = ringBuffer.Next();

>>>>>                 ValueEntry entry = ringBuffer[sequenceNo];

>>>>>                 entry.Value = valueToSet;

>>>>>                 sw[i].Restart();
>>>>>                 ringBuffer.Publish(sequenceNo);

>>>>>                 // let's simulate some work

> I had a closer look to your code:
> 1. There is no warm up phase so you're measuring JIT time
> 2. You're not configuring the disruptor to use the right claim strategy,
> it should be the single threaded one since you have only one producer
> 3. You're doing computations on the hot path, you should just get raw
> measures and compute once the test is complete (for instance store
> stopwatch.GetTimestamp).
> 4. Your array used to store stopwatches is accessed by both threads in
> sequence, the first one writing, the other one reading which likely cause
> lots of false sharing.
> 5. Your final measures include the instrumentation (stopwatch calls do not
> come for free). To do this properly you would have to measure the time
> spent to instrument and subtract it from your final results.

> Hope this helps..

> Olivier

> On 16 nov. 2012, at 13:25, Oleg Vazhnev <ovaz...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:

> Adding perf tests result (not sure if this is important).
> So the question is still why my original test is so slow.

> E:\Oleg\documents\Disruptor-perfRunner-1.0.0.0>Disruptor.PerfTests.exe 0 0
> 1
> Name: OLEGPC
> Manufacturer: LENOVO
> Model: 2436CTO

> Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8 Pro with Media Center
>  - Version: 6.2.9200
>  - ServicePack: 0

> Number of Processors: 1
>  - Name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3720QM CPU @ 2.60GHz
>  - Description: Intel64 Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9
>  - ClockSpeed: 2601 Mhz
>  - Number of cores: 4
>  - Number of logical processors: 8
>  - Hyperthreading: ON

> Memory: 15977 MBytes
>  - L1Cache: 64 KBytes
>  - L2Cache: 256 KBytes
>  - L3Cache: 6144 KBytes

> Scenario=All, Implementation=All, Runs=1
> UniCast1P1CDisruptorPerfTest:24 125 452
> UniCast1P1CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:3 076 923
> UniCast1P1CDataflowPerfTest:6 814 310
> MultiCast1P3CDisruptorPerfTest:16 583 747
> MultiCast1P3CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:993 048
> MultiCast1P3CDataflowPerfTest:
> Pipeline3StepDisruptorPerfTest:26 560 424
> Pipeline3StepBlockingCollectionPerfTest:1 136 363
> Pipeline3StepDataflowPerfTest:1 474 926
> Sequencer3P1CDisruptorPerfTest:15 612 802
> Sequencer3P1CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:2 671 415
> Sequencer3P1CDataflowPerfTest:
> DiamondPath1P3CDisruptorPerfTest:26 455 026
> DiamondPath1P3CBlockingCollectionPerfTest:1 231 527
> DiamondPath1P3CDataflowPerfTest:883 392
> Pipeline3StepLatencyDisruptorPerfTest : Histogram{min=-21, max=547745,
> mean=137.
> 69, 99%=128, 99.99%=131072, [2=15673064, 4=0, 8=0, 16=0, 32=0, 64=0,
> 128=4202065
> , 256=10405, 512=8974, 1024=8795, 2048=11327, 4096=12602, 8192=17833,
> 16384=2459
> 1, 32768=11927, 65536=7315, 131072=9802, 262144=553, 524288=688,
> 1048576=59, 209
> 7152=0, 4194304=0, 8388608=0, 16777216=0, 33554432=0, 67108864=0,
> 134217728=0, 2
> 68435456=0, 536870912=0, 1073741824=0, 9223372036854775807=0]}
> 2       15673064
> 4       0
> 8       0
> 16      0
> 32      0
> 64      0
> 128     4202065
> 256     10405
> 512     8974
> 1024    8795
> 2048    11327
> 4096    12602
> 8192    17833
> 16384   24591
> 32768   11927
> 65536   7315
> 131072  9802
> 262144  553
> 524288  688
> 1048576 59
> 2097152 0
> 4194304 0
> 8388608 0
> 16777216        0
> 33554432        0
> 67108864        0
> 134217728       0
> 268435456       0
> 536870912       0
> 1073741824      0
> 9223372036854775807     0
> Pipeline3StepLatencyBlockingCollectionPerfTest : Histogram{min=505,
> max=1877227,
>  mean=1822.45, 99%=4096, 99.99%=524288, [2=0, 4=0, 8=0, 16=0, 32=0, 64=0,
> 128=0,
>  256=0, 512=29626, 1024=675878, 2048=278179, 4096=6773, 8192=1650,
> 16384=1129, 3
> 2768=1225, 65536=1220, 131072=2286, 262144=1592, 524288=422, 1048576=10,
> 2097152
> =10, 4194304=0, 8388608=0, 16777216=0, 33554432=0, 67108864=0,
> 134217728=0, 2684
> 35456=0, 536870912=0, 1073741824=0, 9223372036854775807=0]}
> 2       0
> 4       0
> 8       0
> 16      0
> 32      0
> 64      0
> 128     0
> 256     0
> 512     29626
> 1024    675878
> 2048    278179
> 4096    6773
> 8192    1650
> 16384   1129
> 32768   1225
> 65536   1220
> 131072  2286
> 262144  1592
> 524288  422
> 1048576 10
> 2097152 10
> 4194304 0
> 8388608 0
> 16777216        0
> 33554432        0
> 67108864        0
> 134217728       0
> 268435456       0
> 536870912       0
> 1073741824      0
> 9223372036854775807     0
> Pipeline3StepLatencyDataflowPerfTest : Histogram{min=9223372036854775807,
> max=0,
>  mean=0, 99%=0, 99.99%=0, [2=0, 4=0, 8=0, 16=0, 32=0, 64=0, 128=0, 256=0,
> 512=0,
>  1024=0, 2048=0, 4096=0, 8192=0, 16384=0, 32768=0, 65536=0, 131072=0,
> 262144=0,
> 524288=0, 1048576=0, 2097152=0, 4194304=0, 8388608=0, 16777216=0,
> 33554432=0, 67
> 108864=0, 134217728=0, 268435456=0, 536870912=0, 1073741824=0,
> 92233720368547758
> 07=0]}
> 2       0
> 4       0
> 8       0
> 16      0
> 32      0
> 64      0
> 128     0
> 256     0
> 512     0
> 1024    0
> 2048    0
> 4096    0
> 8192    0
> 16384   0
> 32768   0
> 65536   0
> 131072  0
> 262144  0
> 524288  0
> 1048576 0
> 2097152 0
> 4194304 0
> 8388608 0
> 16777216        0
> 33554432        0
> 67108864        0
> 134217728       0
> 268435456       0
> 536870912       0
> 1073741824      0
> 9223372036854775807     0
> UniCast1P1CBatchDisruptorPerfTest:120 627 261
> UniCast1P1CBatchBlockingCollectionPerfTest:2 861 230
> UniCast1P1CBatchDataflowPerfTest:8 080 808

> On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:03:01 PM UTC+4, Oleg Vazhnev wrote:

>> The results are for my laptop Lenovo W530 (using ivy bridge processor).

>> I've just also tried to run my test on HP DL360p Gen8 (2 * Xeon E5-2640),
>> the results are:
>> average = 4 minimum = 4 0-5 = 2579, 5-10 = 2388, 10-30 = 32, >30 = 1

>> This is in Release build with no debugger attached.
>> No I didn't tried to run perf tests, probaly I should.
>> Do you think that my test is correct and the problem is with hardware or
>> sotware?

>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:39:11 PM UTC+4, Olivier Deheurles wrote:

>>> Could you describe the hardware used?
>>> Have you tried to run the latency perf test in the perf test suite, in
>>> release mode, without debugger attached?

>>> Olivier

>>> On 16 nov. 2012, at 07:56, Oleg Vazhnev <ovaz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Bug in code

>>> average /= (length - 100);
>>> should be
>>> average /= (length / 2)

>>> Everything else is still correct.

>>> New output (average a little bit more):
>>> average = 6 minimum = 3 0-5 = 4040, 5-10 = 625, 10-30 = 191, >30 = 144

>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:51:18 AM UTC+4, Oleg Vazhnev wrote:

>>>> I'm using disruptor.net port of disruptor. I have significant
>>>> perfomance problems and I don't know why:

>>>> - am I just measure perfomance wrong way?
>>>> - am I use disruptor wrong way?
>>>> - .net port of disruptor is so bad?

>>>> Probably someone can help me. In my real application I've measured that
>>>> using Disruptor I spent ~50 microseconds in average to deliver one message.
>>>> The code below is very simplified version of my real application. The
>>>> difference is that in real appplication i have several consumers and I do
>>>> pass "reference" instead of "int".

>>>> However even simplified test below produced such output:

>>>> average = 4 minimum = 3 0-5 = 3429, 5-10 = 428, 10-30 = 848, >30 = 295

>>>> 4 microsecond for Disruptor is HUGE delay. I expect it always to be
>>>> much less than 1 microsecond. Waiting for suggestions and hints (also
>>>> probably someone can test the same code with Java version, it would be easy
>>>> to port I assume :)

>>>> using System;
>>>> using System.Diagnostics;
>>>> using System.Linq;
>>>> using System.Threading;
>>>> using System.Threading.Tasks;
>>>> using Disruptor;
>>>> using Disruptor.Dsl;

>>>> namespace DisruptorTest
>>>> {
>>>>     public sealed class ValueEntry
>>>>     {
>>>>         public int Value { get; set; }

>>>>         public ValueEntry()
>>>>         {
>>>>             //   Console.WriteLine("New ValueEntry created");
>>>>         }
>>>>     }

>>>>     public class ValueAdditionHandler : IEventHandler<ValueEntry>
>>>>     {
>>>>         public void OnNext(ValueEntry data, long sequence, bool
>>>> endOfBatch)
>>>>         {

>>>>             long microseconds = Program.sw[data.Value].ElapsedTicks /
>>>> (Stopwatch.Frequency / (1000L * 1000L));
>>>>             Program.results[data.Value] = microseconds;
>>>>         }
>>>>     }

>>>>     class Program
>>>>     {
>>>>         public const int length = 10000;
>>>>         public static Stopwatch[] sw = new Stopwatch[length];
>>>>         public static long[] results = new long[length];

>>>>         private static readonly int _ringSize = 1048576;  // Must be
>>>> multiple of 2

>>>>         public static int factorial;

>>>>         static void Main(string[] args)
>>>>         {
>>>>             for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
>>>>             {