> interestingly, node v0.4.6 built with v8 3.3.2 which should have
> crankshaft enabled on 64 bit is slightly quicker for stringify and
> quite a bit slower for parse:

> node 0.4.6/v8 3.3.2
> json    pack:   1318 ms
> json    unpack: 1039 ms

> node.0.4.6/v8 3.1.8.10
> json    pack:   1487 ms
> json    unpack: 851 ms

> On Apr 28, 5:02 am, Chris <cohar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I use a modified version of kriszyp's multi-node that enables 2-way
> > communication

> > Source is here:https://github.com/chriso/node.io/blob/master/lib/node.io/multi_node.js

> > You set it up like this:https://github.com/chriso/node.io/blob/master/lib/node.io/processor.j...

> > Then just use `master.send(msg)` or `workers[i].send(msg)`

> > It's been more than fast enough.

> > On Apr 28, 1:43 pm, billywhizz <apjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > interesting. i am seeing the same speedup. the benchmark on msgpack
> > > github is way out of date. i tested here using an old 0.1.96 version
> > > of node versus latest 0.4.7 on 64 bit with v8 v3.1.8.10 and saw the
> > > following results for peter's bench.js script (i just ran the JSON
> > > tests not the msgpack ones):

> > > v0.1.96:
> > > json    pack:   6787 ms
> > > json    unpack: 11888 ms

> > > v0.4.7:
> > > json    pack:   1487 ms
> > > json    unpack: 851 ms

> > > That's almost 8x faster for JSON.stringify and almost 14x faster for
> > > JSON.parse. This is very nice indeed!

> > > On Apr 28, 3:42 am, Aikar <xdr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Just throwing in my recent findings,
> > > > V8 has apparently done a massive performance boost on JSON.

> > > > msgpack is now alot slower than JSON

> > > > see:https://github.com/aikar/wormhole/issues/3

> > > > I had a good streaming msgpack parser implemented doing 50k messages/
> > > > sec, and switching to json tripled the speed.

> > > > On Apr 27, 9:30 pm, billywhizz <apjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Thanks Matt. had a google but there doesn't seem to be much definitive
> > > > > info out there. i'd wager for large message sizes a unix socket should
> > > > > be quite a bit faster but if sending lots of small messages, you
> > > > > probably won't see a whole lot of difference.

> > > > > Justin, the best way to answer a question like this is to do the
> > > > > testing yourself based on the system/environment you are optimizing
> > > > > for. There's no way to give a definitive general answer to your
> > > > > question.

> > > > > anyway, i'll see what kind of benchmark i can throw together - i'm
> > > > > more interested in the cost of serialization differences myself.

> > > > > On Apr 28, 1:44 am, Matt <hel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:19 PM, billywhizz <apjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > does TCP over loopback on linux really not hit the network stack?
> > > > > > > doesn't it do packet framing, checksums and protocol handshakes etc? i
> > > > > > > can't find any reference to this, so if you have one, please let me
> > > > > > > know.

> > > > > > AFAIK it's optimised to not go through the network driver layer (so it still
> > > > > > goes through parts of the stack, but is optimised so that it doesn't have to
> > > > > > talk to hardware). But this is just a memory from when I used to read the
> > > > > > Kernel change logs years and years ago.  I can't find any reference to it
> > > > > > online now.

> > > > > > Matt.