RE: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
If you use 127.0.0.1:<port> (the defaults in testSpeed.cxx that Andy posted)
it doesn't do any DNS lookups. I can see how localhost would have caused
problems though.
I tried removing the IPHLPAPI library for determineSourceInterface (ie.
define NO_IPHLPAPI), so that windows uses the same mechanism as *nix for
this. I got an extra 100 calls per second - but still no where near the
2000+ calls per seconds Jason is seeing on Linux. :(
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:08 PM
To: Scott Godin
Cc: Andy Agarwal; resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jason@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
TestStack gives a much more realistic measure of the stack performance
_and_ it didn't make assumptions about DNS availability the way
testSpeed
did (people were getting horrid numbers because "localhost" wouldn't
resolve
for example...)
RjS
On Jul 27, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Scott Godin wrote:
> I was using the testSpeed.cxx that Andy posted from testing. I can't
> remember why testSpeed was replaced by testStack - can you refresh my
> memory?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:09 PM
> To: jason@xxxxxx
> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andy Agarwal
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] reSIProcate speed is much slower now
>
> One bit of a sanity check -
>
> The discussion mentions testSpeed - we replaced that with testStack
> quite awhile back.
> testSpeed is not in the repository anymore. Was that a typo remember
> things past?
>
> RjS
>
> On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:09 PM, Fischl jason wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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