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

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.


No SIP processing was done. The load-test was relying on globbing ENUM NAPTR records; so it was an initial NAPTR query that would miss cache, which fed into another NAPTR query that did cache. c-ares was about twice as fast at this as resip-ares.

Best regards,
Byron Campen

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