Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
Thanks Scott for fixing this.
I am curious why we see much lower performance on win32 than on Linux.
On a 3GHz P4, I see > 2k calls per second under linux.
Hmmm.
Jason
On 7/25/05, Andy Agarwal <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> >
>