< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread Thread Index Next in Thread >

RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now


Great. The problem seems to have been fixed. Now the testSpeed program
is generating 395 calls per second (even more than the results obtained
from reSIP 0.9).

Thanks for taking care of this...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:17 AM
To: Andy Agarwal; jason@xxxxxx
Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now

I did some investigation into this issue and found that a relatively
recent addition to the WinCompat code is causing the slowness.  If you
build with USE_IPV6, then WinCompat uses the
determineSourceInterfaceWithIPV6 function, as opposed to the
determineSourceInterfaceWithoutIPV6 function.  The
WithIPV6 version can end up taking 100-200ms to return - thus slowing
down the entire test.

This function needs to be fixed - but in the meantime, I've modified the
code so that even if the USE_IPV6 flag is turned on, if the IP Address
is a
V4 address then it will use the "WithoutIPV6" version instead.  This
means that the performance is restored for IPV4 addresses, and only IPV6
addresses will be slow.

Thanks,

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Agarwal [mailto:Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:08 PM
To: jason@xxxxxx
Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now


I set the logging to "Error". Nothing was printed by the program while
the test ran.

        Log::initialize(Log::Cout, Log::Err, argv[0]);

I also built the stack and test program in Win32-Release mode. Did not
change the reSIP settings. I see that it is set to - Full Optimization
(Ox) and Favor Fast Code (/Oy)



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Fischl jason [mailto:jason.fischl@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:57 AM
To: Andy Agarwal
Cc: jiangjinke@xxxxxxx; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now

Did you build with optimization turned on? Also, is any logging enabled?
What type of logging (i.e. file-based)?

Jason


On 7/21/05, Andy Agarwal <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, I am running the stack on Win32. Should have mentioned that,
sorry.
> The machine I'm running it on is a 3GHz P4 with 1GB RAM running 
> Windows
> 2003 server
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> jiangjinke@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:07 PM
> To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> I'm using the rev. 5129 now, and the average (about 10 times) call 
> rate is 340 cps.
> The platform I'm using:
> Redhat EL3,
> P4 CPU 2.40GHz,
> 1G Memory
> 
> I've try the program on another win32 machine:
> 500 calls peformed in 13859 ms, a rate of 36.0776 calls per second.]
> CPU: P4 2.4G
> MEM: 512M
> The performance drops a lot under win32 It seems the problem only 
> exists in the win32 related code.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Jinke Jiang
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Agarwal" <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:23 AM
> Subject: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
> 
> 
> I was using reSIP 0.9.5019 until yesterday. I switched to revision 
> 5096 from the main branch because of a bug in 0.9 where the duplicate 
> transaction ids were being created in my multi-threaded app (see - 
> http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/resiprocate-devel/msg02835.html).
> 
> I was trying to see if there is a performance difference between 0.9 
> and rev. 5096 from the main branch and found a significant change.
> In 0.9 the testSpeed program generates 359 calls per second.
> In rev. 5096 it generates 72 calls per second.
> 
> Can anyone explain the reason behind this huge drop ? I have attached 
> the testSpeed program for those interested.
> 
> thanks,
> andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> --------
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>