Re: [reSIProcate] Followup on c-ares support
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right thread to post this mail.
Anyway in my opinion during c-ares integration in Resiprocate, it has been
introduced a very little mistake in a log in AresDns.cxx
In particular in AresDns::internalInit() method in SVN head was inserted the
following code:
WarningLog (<< "Ignoring non-IPv4 additional name server "
#if defined(USE_ARES)
"(not yet supported with c-ares)"
#elif defined(USE_CARES)
"(IPv6 support was not enabled)"
#endif
);
If I'm not wrong the two logs must be switched:
WarningLog (<< "Ignoring non-IPv4 additional name server "
#if defined(USE_ARES)
"(IPv6 support was not enabled)"
#elif defined(USE_CARES)
"(not yet supported with c-ares)"
#endif
);
Sorry if this was not the right thread.
Best regards,
Dario.
________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: venerdì 28 novembre 2008 7.50
To: Brad Spencer
Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] Followup on c-ares support
Brad Spencer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 05:33:08PM -0600, Adam Roach wrote:
>
>> During our testing, we did note that c-ares is substantially faster
>> than the resip version of ares.
>>
>
> Interesting. How much faster are we talking about?
>
I don't have the actual benchmarks at hand, but Byron and I discussed first-cut
performance results. Doing some very DNS-heavy processing (i.e., each request
was associated with a different DNS record, so no caching was possible), I
think he said that we were able to push almost twice as many SIP transactions
through repro with c-ares than with the built-in ares.
Normal disclaimers apply (we may have overlooked something, YMMV, etc).
/a
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel